Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

United Kingdom Temperance and General Provident Institution Bill [Lords].

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Portsmouth Corporation Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill).

As amended, considered; read the Third time (pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December), and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

COLLIERY EMPLOYÉS (WOMEN).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India the number of females employed daily underground in mines under the Indian Mines Act for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and can he state the number of reductions that have taken place since the 1st July,, 1929?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): The average number of women employed underground daily during 1928 was 31,785. I expect to receive the figures for 1929 about the end of July next. As my hon. Friend is aware, there is statutory provision for reduction to a nil figure by July, 1939.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many hours these women work?

Mr. BENN: I will gladly make inquiries if the hon. Member desires.

AGRICULTURE.

Major GRAHAM POLE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he
has now received the Report of the Government of India showing the action that has been taken to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Agriculture in India?

Mr. BENN: Yes, Sir. If it is desired that I should do so, I shall be pleased to place a copy of the Report at the disposal of my hon. Friend and the House.

FIJI (ELECTORAL SYSTEM).

Major POLE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether steps have been or are being taken by the Government of India to represent to His Majesty's Government the dissatisfaction of the Indian community in Fiji with the electoral system introduced under the recent constitutional reforms in the Colony, whereby the electoral roll for the Colonial Legislature is divided along racial lines?

Mr. BENN: The Government of India have the matter under consideration.

TRAINING SHIP (CALCUTTA).

Major POLE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the success of the scheme for the training of Indian boys on the training ship "Dufferin," stationed at Bombay, the Government of India will consider the desirability of establishing a similar training ship at Calcutta?

Mr. BENN: I have not heard of such a proposal being made to the Government of India.

Major POLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Federated Indian Chambers of Commerce sent a resolution to the Government of India some time ago?

Mr. BENN: That has not come to my notice. I did not know that was the case.

OPIUM CONFERENCE.

Mr. WELLOCK: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the date is yet fixed for the convening of the conference of local governments on opium policy; how the conference will be composed; and whether the proceedings will be public?

Mr. BENN: I fear I can add nothing at present to the reply which I gave to
my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southern Derbyshire (Major Pole) on the 10th February of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Mr. WELLOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to be in a position to give a reply?

Mr. BENN: No. The reply that was given was that the meeting was to take place in the first part of May. I do not know that any other information beyond that is at my disposal.

NESTORIAN CHRISTIANS.

Mr. SORENSEN: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India the estimated number of Nestorian Christians in India; and whether they have made any direct or indirect representations to him concerning the future Government of India?

Mr. BENN: The Census Report of 1921 shows the number as 97. I have received no representations from them.

Mr. SORENSEN: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that the answer is 97?

Mr. BENN: That is so.

Mr. SORENSEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number is nearer three-quarters of a million?

Mr. BENN: Perhaps my hon. Friend and I are at cross purposes about the definition. If he is speaking about Nestorian Christians the number is given by the census as 97. If he is speaking about Jacobites or Romo-Syrians the numbers are much larger.

CHILD MARRIAGE RESTRAINT ACT.

Miss RATHBONE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will endeavour to expedite the replies of the local Governments to the inquiries addressed to them by the Government of India concerning the measures proposed to facilitate the enforcement of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1928, in view of the fact that the Act is now about to come into operation?

Mr. BENN: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Governments in India are fully alive to the importance of the matter.

Miss RATHBONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more in view of the fact that the Child Marriage Act is about to become operative, and that it is over six months since the report of the Age of Consent Committee was published. As that Report is of a most important character, the opinion of women who believe in reform in this matter is exacerbated by what they regard as the supineness of the Central Government on the subject.

Mr. BENN: I can assure the hon. Lady that there has been no supineness on the part of the Government of India in this matter. It is primarily a matter for them, and I have no doubt of their good faith in regard to it.

Earl WINTERTON: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give us more information on this question in which great interest is taken in all parts of the House? Does he realise that if he makes regulations the Local Government will have to see that they are strictly and rigidly put into operation?

Mr. BENN: That is not the question on the Paper. If the Noble Lord wishes for information as to what is occurring, I shall be glad to get it.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that infants as soon as they are born are being married at the present time in order to avoid the Act?

Mr. BENN: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for that information.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

CONSULAR REPRESENTATION (DOMINIONS AND INDIA).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has informed him that it is prepared to receive a consular representative of the Soviet Government; and, if so, whether it specified any conditions respecting the appointment?

Mr. BENN: I have received no such communication from the Government of India.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been informed by any Dominion Governments of their willingness to accept a Soviet consular representative; and, if so, by what Dominion Governments and upon what conditions?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia asked His Majesty's Government in this country on the 16th of January to inform the Soviet Government that, if the Soviet Government desire to appoint a Consular Officer in Australia, His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth would be prepared to accept such an officer, subject to the usual provision that he should be persona grata and to the formal reiteration of the undertaking in respìt of propaganda, on the basis of reciprocity, as provided for in the exchange of Notes of the 20th of December, 1929.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the Dominions and Protectorates are included in his reply?

Mr. HENDERSON: Only the one that I have named.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman warn the Government of Australia—[Interruption.]

BRITISH REATIONS.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before the House adjourns for the Easter Recess, he will make a statement as to the progress of the negotiations with the Soviet Ambassador?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I shall certainly be prepared to make a statement if the present stage of the negotiations has been concluded before the adjournment.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the sense of hardship that is being suffered by many citizens who have had their property taken without compensation? The matter is of great urgency.

RELIGIOUS SITUATION.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any representations from the Baptist churches in regard to the question of religious liberty in Russia?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have not received any representations other than those referred to in my replies to the hon. and gallant Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) on the 5th and the 24th March.

Sir K. WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any action in reference to these representations?

Mr. HENDERSON: That was answered on the 24th March, and I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I then gave.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the protest against the attack on religion made by Mr. Woll, chairman of the American Labour Unions, and will he take courage from that American Labour protest?

Captain MARGESSON: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Anglican church in Moscow is available, if wanted, for religious worship?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my right hon. Friend's reply of the 24th March to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery).

Captain MARGESSON: Is it not a fact that the previous reply was to the effect that the church was not wanted, and not that it was not available?

Mr. DALTON: If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the reply which was given by my right hon. Friend to his hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery), he will see that a question identical in meaning to this was put and answered.

Mr. ALBERY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the question; he will find that the point really raised was whether the church was available as and when required.

Mr. DALTON: That is exactly the question which was asked as a supplementary question by the hon. Gentleman, and has now been repeated in substance by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Captain Margesson). For that reason, I referred the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the previous reply given to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gravesend.

Sir F. HALL: What was the answer?

Mr. DALTON: It is a common practice when a question is repeated to refer the hon. Member, with a view to saving the time of the House, to a previous answer.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the House sufficiently long—[Interruption,]—he would have known that as a matter of courtesy—[Interruption]. Mr. Speaker will keep me in order. As a matter of courtesy to Members, it is usual for the Minister to repeat the answer, and will he give the reply to my hon. and gallant Friend?

Captain MARGESSON: I think that there has been some misunderstanding, and will the hon. Gentleman give the answer now?

Mr. DALTON: This being the second round of questions, I shall not be preventing the first round being completed, and I have no objection to reading the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in reply to the supplementary question on 24th March, but this must not be taken as a precedent. The answer was:
The church is not required for the reasons I have already given, and the church is unused at the moment, as I have reported to the House on more than one occasion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1930; cols. 12–13, Vol 237.]

Mr. ALBERY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he now realises that the question as to whether the church is available, has not been answered?

Captain MARGESSON: If I put the question down again, will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether it is available, and not refer me to a previous answer?

Captain MARGESSON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has instructed our
Ambassador at Moscow to report from time to time on the situation of British subjects in Russia so far as their religious liberty is concerned?

Mr. DALTON: His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow would naturally report any interference with the religious liberty of British subjects in the Soviet Union. In view of the standing instructions to all His Majesty's representatives abroad regarding British subjects, my right hon. Friend does not consider that any special instructions to His Majesty's Ambassador are necessary.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that ration cards are refused to ministers of religion, and will he make inquiries in this respect?

Mr. DALTON: That question does not arise.

CHINA (SITUATION).

Mr. DAY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had any recent communications from the representatives of His Majesty's Government in China as to the present position in that country; and can he give the House particulars?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information to give the House regarding the situation in China?

Commander SOUTFIBY: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement as to the position of the Nanking Government in Northern China?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have received no reports from His Majesty's representative in China as to the present position in that country since I replied to questions on this subject, on the 26th instant. It is reported in the Press that the Northern forces have occupied Chengchow without meeting resistance, and that one general, whose allegiance to Nanking was in doubt, has joined the opposition.

Captain MACDONALD: Have special steps been taken to safeguard British interests?

Mr. HENDERSON: I answered that question on Wednesday, and, as far as my information went, there was no danger.

Commander SOUTHBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the British representative in China for further information regarding the position of the Nanking Government?

Mr. HENDERSON: If the hon. and gallant Member will give me the point on which he wants information, I will see if I can obtain it.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

BRITISH CONTRIBUTION.

Captain MACDONALD: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the contributions of members of the League of Nations towards the expenditure of the League and how the British contribution compares with that of all other countries?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The contributions payable by States members of the League of Nations for 1930 will amount to 27,100,000 gold francs. The contribution payable by His Majesty's Government in Great Britain will amount to 2,901,000 gold francs, equivalent to £115,500 approximately, or 10.65 per cent. of the total. Of this amount £79,000 will be provided in the League of Nations Vote, and £36,500 in the Ministry of Labour Vote in respect of the International Labour Organisation.

Captain MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the British Government contribution is so much greater than that of any other nation?

Mr. CECIL WILSON: Is it correct to say that proportionately to its naval and military expenditure the contribution of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is smaller than that of any other European State?

Mr. HENDERSON: The proportions, I understand, were worked out by a special Committee some time ago, and our proportion was allocated, and there has been no change since that time.

EGYPT (TREATY NEGOTIATIONS).

Captain MACDONALD: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the negotiations have been opened on the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty; and, if so, who is conducting them on behalf of the British Government?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. I am conducting the negotiations myself, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for War, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, and the Secretary of State for Air.

Captain MACDONALD: Is there anyone on this Committee who has special knowledge of Egyptian affairs?

Mr. HENDERSON: I do not know what the hon. Member means by special knowledge. I have already intimated to the House that the High Commissioner, who has some little knowledge of Egyptian affairs, is present to assist and advise.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 11.
(for Captain CROOKSHANK) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received from the Egyptian Government a list of their delegates who are coming to London to negotiate a treaty; and, if not, whether he will take steps to secure their names for the information of this House?

Mr. DALTON: The names of the Egyptian delegates are: Mustafa-el-Nahas Pasha, Prime Minister; Wassif Boutros iGhali Pasha, Minister for Foreign Affairs; Osman Moharrem Pasha, Minister of Public Works; William Makram Ebeid Effendi, Minister of Finance.

Captain MACDONALD: In view of the avowed anti-British sentiments of at least one of these delegates, will the Foreign Secretary take steps to ensure that British interests are not sacrificed?

Mr. DALTON: I think that that is a very improper question.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: British hospitality, I suppose!

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIA (EXPORT CREDITS).

Mr. W. J. BROWN: 22.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the total sum of money represented
by applications under the Export Credit Facilities Act in respect of goods proposed to be exported to Russia which have been rejected because the period of guarantee asked for exceeded 12 months?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): No statistics are available in regard to the amount of business rejected under the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Member tell us whether the amount is considerable or not?

Mr. BROWN: As this information is not in the Department, will the hon. Member take steps to get it?

Mr. GILLETT: I may explain that I answered a question on this point more fully on 10th March and explained the reasons why any figures would be valueless.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I have a reply to my question as to whether the amount is considerable?

Mr. GILLETT: The answer I have just given applies to that point.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is it not the case that the accepted business, £738,000, shows that the amount of business coming forward is only a dribble?

Mr. GILLETT: The hon. Member knows that many applications are made, some of which may apply to the same piece of work, and therefore we cannot attach any importance to the nominal figures we have.

Mr. BROWN: Is it not possible to distinguish between applications of that kind and tell us the sum of money involved in the applications which have been rejected? If it is possible to tell us how much has been granted, is it not possible to tell us how much has been rejected?

Mr. GILLETT: Because to give these figures would be to give an entirely wrong impression to the House.

Mr. BROWN: At present we have no impression at all.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is it not the case that the amount of business coming forward which has been rejected is really not worth having?

Mr. GILLETT: I cannot agree with the hon. Member.

Sir A. KNOX: 23.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the total value of imports from the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics in 1929 and the total value of exports to that country, distinguishing between British manufactures and re-exports?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The hon. and gallant Member will find the figures for which he asks in the answer which was given to the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) on the 11th February last, and of which I am sending him a copy.

TEXTILE INDUSTRY (ARGENTINA).

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 24.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what has been the outcome of the recent visits to Huddersfield and Bradford by the commercial counsellor to His Majesty's Embassy in Argentina; and whether his Department has ascertained at Huddersfield and Bradford what action is being taken there on the Reports collected by his Department from 16 countries on woollen piece-goods of moderate price?

Mr. GILLETT: It is too early yet to say what the result of the recent visits will be, but the commercial counsellor is shortly returning to Argentina where he will be able to make further inquiries into the points which have been brought up. The reports referred to in the second part of the question are being passed on to the trade through the medium of the Chambers of Commerce at Huddersfield and Bradford, but the series is not yet fully complete. I have not received information as to action so far taken. A report may be expected at a later date.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Without pressing the hon. Member, does he not think, if he can find the time, that it would be better for him to go down himself and see what is going on? If he used his own initiative, it might lead to something being done.

Mr. GILLETT: As a matter of fact, the commercial counsellor is far better qualified than I am myself to undertake this duty. He will report to me the result.

TARIFF TRUCE (AUSTRIA).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it was arranged at the Geneva tariff conference last week to include a provision that Austria should not proceed with negotiations to impose import tariffs against Great Britain and other countries after the flotation in London of the suggested loan required to assist Austria to develop her industries?

Mr. GILLETT: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. SAMUEL: Are we to understand that no arrangement has been made under which steps will be taken to see that we do not supply the money here to develop Austrian industries, and then find a state of affairs in which Austria, having obtained our money to set up her industries, puts on a tariff to protect herself against our manufactures?

Mr. GILLETT: We have really no information on this matter.

Mr. SAMUEL: But the question of this loan to Austria was raised in the House the other day.

Captain P. MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that the decisions of this conference are wholly innocuous in so far as Great Britain is concerned? And is it not a waste of time and expenditure for the President of the Board of Trade to attend conferences of this nature?

COTTON INDUSTRY (INQUIRY).

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when he expects to receive a Report from the committee which is examining the position of the cotton industry in this country; whether this Report will be published; and whether he will also publish the evidence upon which the Report is based?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I understand that the committee hope to he able to submit their Report after Easter. It is impossible to consider the question of publication until the Report is received. The evidence received by the committee has been submitted on the express understanding that it would not he made public. It will therefore not be published.

Mr. HACKING: May we know whether or not the Government have appointed any fresh chairman lately to this committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am perfectly certain that the hon. Member knows.

Mr. HACKING: They have not appointed a fourth chairman?

TRADE FACILITIES ACTS (GUARANTEES).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 70.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will, before 14th April next, issue a White Paper showing in detail each outstanding guarantee given under the Trade Facilities Acts, 1921 to 1926, with particulars of the names of the recipients of the guarantees, the purposes to which the guarantees were applied, and the later variations, if any, the original rates of interest and terms of repayment and nature of assets upon which the guarantees were secured, and the later variations, if any, together with an account of the sums repaid and of the sums issued from the Consolidated Fund in fulfilment of Trade Facilities Acts guarantees, all up to 31st March, 1930?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): Information with regard to the guarantees given under the Trade Facilities Acts is published in the normal course in the White Papers issued in accordance with Section 1 (5) of the Acts. A White Paper bringing this information up to date will be published next month. I fear that I cannot undertake to publish the extensive and confidential details with regard to individual guarantees. suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. SAMUEL: Why should not the. hon. Gentleman re-publish the figures and facts that are not confidential, so that we can again see the whole list of those to whom guarantees have been given, the dates, the amounts and the terms, without disclosing anything confidential? It has been done before.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have already explained that those facts are of a confidential character, and that all the information that we are entitled to publish is published in the White Paper.

OYSTER BREEDING GROUNDS (RESTOCKING).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 25.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he has taken to experiment with the restocking processes by which Professor Kinkaid, of Washington University, has succeeded in developing on a paying basis the oyster-breeding grounds on the North-West Pacific coast of the United States of America?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): I am aware of the investigations in oyster cultivation undertaken by the United States Bureau of Fisheries in conjunction with the Department of Fisheries of the State of Washington. The Pacific oyster is of a different species from our native oyster, and presents accordingly different problems of breeding and cultivation; but I may add that a member of the Ministry's scientific staff is now on his way to Canada to carry out investigations in oyster-breeding for the Biological Board of Canada, and it is hoped that an opportunity may occur for him to study American methods of oyster breeding and cultivation, both on the Pacific and the Atlantic coasts.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to find out whether our own men on the coast of North Norfolk and the Wash would not welcome this type of American oyster to try for breeding purposes?

Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Member is one of the greatest authorities on the subject of oysters, and he knows that the special difference between the English and American oyster must be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

NATIONAL-MARK SCHEME.

Mr. HURD: 27.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the difficulty found in some parts of the country in buying all-English bread made from national-mark flour, he will arrange with the President of the Board of Education to invite county councils to hold classes to enable local bakers to regain the art of baking a palatable loaf from all-English flour?

Mr. N. BUXTON: As a first step, it is desirable to promote baking tests to
establish the most satisfactory technique for the baking of loaves from all-English wheat flour, and in this matter I am looking for advice to the National Mark Flour Trade Committee and to the National Association of Maser Bakers, Confectioners and Caterers. In the circumstances, the time is hardly ripe to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion which, however, I shall be glad to keep before me.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps have been taken by his Department to obtain publicity for the national-mark scheme in respect of flour and meat; and whether he is satisfied that adequate public attention has been obtained as the result of those efforts?

Mr. BUXTON: Since the introduction of the national-mark beef scheme in London and Birmingham, there has not only been widespread publicity in the Press but, with the assistance of the Empire Marketing Board, special publicity campaigns have been carried out on behalf of the scheme in both areas with encouraging results. My Department has also maintained continuous publicity for the national-mark flour scheme, though on a less extensive scale than in the case of beef, and there is evidence that retail traders are giving more attention to this product. I recognise that there is scope for farther effort, and I hope shortly to be in a position to ensure increased publicity for all national-mark schemes.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what results have been achieved in consequence of his efforts?

Mr. BUXTON: There has been a marked increase in the consumption of national marked beef; about 50 per cent. in London on last month's consumption.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: May I ask whether the publicity campaign has been carried to the extent of sending a notice to the Secretary of State for War?

Mr. GUINNESS: May I ask whether there has been any increase in the price of yeoman wheat to the farmer as a result of this demand?

Mr. BUXTON: Not that I am aware of.

POLICY.

Mr. BEAUMONT: 26.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered the Report on agricultural policy adopted on the 8th January, 1930, by the policy committee of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, of which a copy has been sent to the Minister, with the opinion of the Prime Minister on the points involved; and, if so, what action he proposes to take thereon?

Mr. N. BUXTON: I have received and considered the document referred to by the hon. Member. The proposals which it contains are among those which are being examined by the Government.

COMMON LAND (ROAD AND RAIL DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES).

Mr. EDE: 32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if schemes for new railways or widenings of existing railways which involve the acquisition of common land and manorial wastes are brought to the notice of his Department; and, if so, what steps he takes to secure that an area at least equivalent to that so taken from the common or waste shall be added?

Mr. N. BUXTON: By Standing Orders of this House, Nos. 30 and 33 (17), where power is sought in a Private Bill to take any common land for the purpose of the Bill, particulars must be deposited at the Office of the Ministry, which makes a report to Parliament upon the proposals. In framing its report the Ministry invariably gives due consideration to the question whether an area at least equivalent to that to be taken from the common should be added thereto and, unless there are special circumstances which would make such a suggestion unreasonable, recommends the insertion of a provision to that effect. The Standing Orders do not require any reference to the Ministry in cases where the land to be acquired is manorial waste which is not common.

Mr. EDE: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if schemes for new roads and road widenings, which involve the acquisition of common land and manorial wastes, are brought to the notice of his Department; and, if so, what steps he takes to secure that an area at least equivalent to that so taken from the common or waste shall be added?

Mr. BUXTON: Schemes for road widening or road construction under the Town Planning Act, 1925, the compulsory provisions of the Development Act, 1909, and the Public Health Act, 1875, involving the acquisition of common land, are brought to the notice of the Ministry, and in the absence of express sanction of Parliament require the consent of the Department, which is only given if an equal area of land is added.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I ask where that equal acreage of land comes from? Does it come by reason of cultivated land being made waste land?

Mr. BUXTON: I did not quite catch the hon. Member's question.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Where does this equal acreage come from?

Mr. BUXTON: The authority acquiring the land is compelled to furnish an equivalent.

Mr. EDE: May I ask whether there are any road-widening operations in which the circumstances of the inclusion of common land have not to be submitted to the Ministry?

Mr. BUXTON: Yes, there may be exceptions, where the land is acquired voluntarily under the provisions of the Development Act from the lord of the manor owning manorial rights.

EPSOM DOWNS.

Mr. EDE: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has received any application for a scheme of regulation for the Metropolitan common known as Epsom Downs?

Mr. N. BUXTON: No such application has been received.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

BRITISH EMBASSY, WASHINGTON (FURNISHING).

Sir F. HALL: 35.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if we will state the date of the departure and proposed return of the Permanent Secretary of his Department to inspect the standard of furnishing at the new British Embassy at Washington; and will he issue, on the return of the
Permanent Secretary, in a White Paper the decisions arrived at by the Permanent Secretary for the future guidance of the technical officers of the Department in similar cases?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): The Permanent Secretary left for Washington on the 26th March. He is due to return on the 1st May. The answer to the second part of the question is "No."

Sir F. HALL: Why not? If Government money is to be expended in sending a man out there to look after the furnishing and to get information, do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give that information to other officers of the Department, so that they may be aware of it? Why will the right hon. Gentleman not impart the information?

Mr. LANSBURY: Because it is totally unnecessary.

Sir F. HALL: If it is totally unnecessary, is it not also unnecessary to send a man there?

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what is the cost of this expedition to Washington?

Mr. LANSBURY: I answered that question last week.

Mr. BRACKEN: What is the necessity for sending the Permanent Secretary when the right hon. Gentleman has already commissioned an architect who is quite competent to judge this furnishing scheme?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry that the hon. Member was not present, but I answered that question also last week.

COUNCIL OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER.

Captain BOURNE: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how often the Council of the Duchy has met since 1st July, 1929?

The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Sir Oswald Mosley): The Council of the Duchy has met once since 1st July, 1929.

Captain BOURNE: Does the Council meet in London or in the Duchy?

Sir O. MOSLEY: It meets at the London office of the Duchy.

Sir F. HALL: As the duties of his office seem to be so scarce, would it not be advisable if the Chancellor of the Duchy were to lend his assistance to the Lord Privy Seal, so that they might be able to bring in some schemes—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SMITHERS: Is the Lord Privy Seal a member of the Council of the Duchy?

Captain BOURNE: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the number of staff employed in his Department and the total cost thereof, distinguishing between the cost of salaries and other expenses?

Sir O. MOSLEY: The number of staff employed in the Department is 17 principal officers, including messengers, and six local agents and collectors. The cost of this staff is £7,666. The total expenses of management as appearing in the Account for the year ended 21st December, 1929, recently presented to Parliament, were 210,250—in which figure the salaries of the staff are included.

Sir K. WOOD: Were any of the staff detailed to assist the right hon. Baronet in preparing the memorandum on unemployment?

Major COLFOX: May I ask the Minister, what proportion his own salary bears to the total expenses of the Duchy?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS (CADET CORPS SERVICE).

Mr. W. J. BROWN: 71.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Civil Service Commission, in conducting examinations for appointments for the Home (Administrative) Civil Service, Indian Civil Service, Foreign Office, Diplomatic and Consular Services, and Eastern Cadetships in the Colonial Office, have regard to service put in by candidates in the Junior Division (Officers' Training Corps), the Senior Division (Officers' Training Corps), the Territorial Army, and the Territorial Cadet unit?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Candidates for the situations to which the hon. Member refers are required to furnish, in prescribed form, a record of their life and education in order to assist the Examiners in the viva voce portion of the examination. Service in the Officers' Training Corps, the Territorial Army, etc., is one of the many activities in regard to which information is to be furnished on the form.

Mr. BROWN: Inasmuch as the asking and answering of these particular questions implies that service with the Cadet Corps will influence the marking of the Civil Service Examiners, will the President of the Civil Service Commission see to it that these questions are not asked in future?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No exception, so far as I am aware, has been taken to these questions before, and I see no reason why any alteration should be made in this case.

Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the great majority of Members of this House do not have the same opinion as the hon. Member who put this question?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If a boy says, "I was educated at Borstal, where the best education is given," will that answer disqualify him?

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Major COLVILLE: 72.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many conscientious objectors have been promoted over the heads of ex-service men in the Civil Service in terms of the Circular of September, 1929?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have repeated the inquiry made for the purpose of replying to the similar questions put to me on 17th December and 21st January last, and the answer is the same, namely, three.

Major COLVILLE: Will the hon. Gentleman say if these promotions were made entirely on the ground of efficiency?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: Yes, certainly.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, MACCLESFIELD.

Mr. REMER: 36.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what progress has been made in finding a site for the new Macclesfield Employment Exchange, as requested by the Minister of Labour?

Mr. LANSBURY: A site has been found and my Department's architects are considering whether it meets their requirements.

Mr. REMER: In view of the urgent need of this new Exchange, will the right hon. Gentleman expedite it by every possible means?

Mr. LANSBURY: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS.

WINDOW CLEANING.

Mr. HOFFMAN: 37.
asked the First Commissioner of Works how often the windows of the House of Commons are cleaned; when they last were cleaned; and to what authority is given the duty to clean them when they are cleaned?

Mr. LANSBURY: The frequency with which the windows are cleaned is laid down in a lengthy schedule and varies according to the character and use made of the accommodation; as a rule, plain windows are cleaned every six weeks during Sessions and stained-glass windows at varying intervals, but arrangements exist for more frequent cleaning, where necessary, in special cases. Cleaning is in progress throughout the year in different parts of the building. The work is done under a contract administered by my Department.

Mr. HOFFMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman speed up this cleaning process? If we cannot have fresh air, might we have some sunlight?

Captain BOURNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the Committee Room windows are extremely dirty?

Mr. LANSBURY: If hon. Members will have a little patience they will soon find spring-cleaning in full operation.

Sir F. HALL: Is this part of the work of the Permanent Secretary who is going joy-riding to Washington?

Mr. LANSBURY: I would like to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to repeat that statement about joy-riding. The Permanent Secretary has gone on a very important duty.

Sir F. HALL: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: This question has been fully dealt with before.

CLOCK.

Mr. REMER: 40.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what steps are taken to insure that the time given by Big Ben is correct?

Mr. LANSBURY: The clock is checked daily by Greenwich Observatory. During the past 290 days the error has exceeded one second on eight days only.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied, in view of the fact that Big Ben is three minutes slow compared with every other clock in the country?

Mr. LANSBURY: I should say that all the others are wrong and that Big Ben is right.

BOTANIC GARDENS AND ST. JOHN'S LODGE.

Major EDMONDSON: 38 and 39.
asked the First Commissioner of Works (1) what decision has been arrived at for dealing with the ground now occupied by the Botanic Gardens, Regents Park, after the expiration of the present lease;
(2) what decision has been arrived at for dealing with the premises now occupied by St. John's Lodge, Regents Park, after the expiration of the present lease?

Mr. LANSBURY: The question of the future use of the Botanic Gardens and of St. John's Lodge is under consideration at the present time, but no decisions have yet been taken.

Major EDMONDSON: When is it expected that a decision will be reached?

Mr. LANSBURY: Very shortly, I hope.

AFFORESTATION (CARMARTHENSHIRE).

Mr. HOPKIN: 43.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade as representing the Forestry Commis-
sioners, in view of the opportunities for afforestation in Carmarthenshire and the number of unemployed in the county, and the fact that only 59 additional acres have been planted and 10 more men employed this year, if he will agree to the setting up of an advisory committee from. the county of Carmarthen, representing all interests, so as to hasten the rate of progress?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: The facts are not as stated. The Commission's planting programme in Carmarthenshire this season is 400 acres, which is 59 more than the programme last season. It is unnecessary to set up such a committee as is suggested, as under the Forestry Act, 1919, Section 6, a Consultative Committee for Wales has already been established, and is representative of the various interests specified in that Section. The commissioners are prepared to submit to that Committee the facts regarding the afforestation programme in Carmarthen-shire and to ask for their advice.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that it is possible to grow much better timber in the Highlands, especially in Argyllshire, and will he ask the Forestry Commission to devote their zeal to that part of the country?

LONDON NAVAL CONFERENCE.

Commander SOUTHBY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government still adhere to their determination to arrive at an agreement between the whole five Powers taking part in the Naval Conference, and not between two or three of them?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether any proposals have been made at the London Naval Conference which would involve the scrapping of the four cruisers of the "Hawkins" class in the British Navy?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think it would be clearly undesirable to give information of this character while the negotiations are still in progress and provisional proposals may be modified at any moment. While I am only too anxious to take the House into my confidence at the earliest possible time,
I am sure that there will be general agreement that fragmentary information, given in reply to Parliamentary questions, might not only prove misleading to the House, but might also prejudice the success of the Conference. Whatever agreement is come to, it will be a systematically balanced whole and must be considered as a complete plan in relation to the programmes of other Powers.

Sir C. CAYZER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it would be very false economy to scrap such up-to-date vessels, in view of the fact that, whatever the result of the Naval Conference may be, this country is bound to be faced with a heavy replacement programme in the next few years?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure the hon. Member that all those considerations will be taken into account.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "VICTORY"(NELSON'S FURNITURE).

Captain CAZALET: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Nelson's furniture, now on loan to the "Victory," is about to be sold; and whether the Government will he prepared to make a reasonable contribution for the purchase of these articles in order to secure them as a national possession?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware of the facts in connection with this furniture, but although I have every sympathy with the patriotic purpose underlying the hon. and gallant Member's question, and regret that there should be any possibility of this furniture leaving its appropriate place, I do not think His Majesty's Government would be justified in devoting public money to this purpose.

Captain CAZALET: If at any future time there is a danger of this furniture going out of the country altogether, will the Government reconsider their decision?

The PRIME MINISTER: As a good many hon. Members in all parts of the House know, we are very much interested in this question of the export of national treasures, but the difficulty is to draft legislation which would not be more unjust than it would be expedient, and
I would be only too glad if I could get any practical advice from any hon. Members of this House as to how to stop this sort of thing.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is not this furniture of the nature of a national monument?

FOOD VALUES (HOME-KILLED AND IMPORTED MEAT).

Mr. HURD: 52.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will invite the Empire Marketing Board to follow up the tests of fresh milk in schools by shaking grants for cooking classes in elementary and secondary schools to carry out tests of the higher nutritive and cooking values of home-killed as compared with imported chilled meat?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): I do not feel that I should be justified iii inviting the Empire Marketing Board to undertake the tests proposed.

Mr. HURD: Will the hon. Gentleman be willing to receive representations on this important point?

Mr. LUNN: I am willing to receive any evidence in support of this idea from the hon. Member.

Mr. HURD: 44.
asked the Minister of Health the results of recent cooking tests in public institutions of British home-killed and imported chilled beef, with a view especially to ascertaining the validity of the claim of some local authorities that the lesser wastage in the cooking of home-killed meat makes it a more economical purchase?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I apologise for not being present earlier, when this question was first called. My right hon. Friend cannot trace the receipt in the Department of particulars of the results of any such tests as are referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. HURD: In answering a supplementary question that I put on the previous occasion, did not the hon. Lady say she would cause inquiries to be made in this particular matter?

Miss LAWRENCE: No; if I recollect aright, I said that I should be very glad to pay attention to any further particulars that the hon. Member gave me, and I have not yet received the information.

Mr. HURD: It was published in all the agricultural papers.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE FACILITIES, LIVERPOOL.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 53.
asked the Post-master-General the cause of the delay in erecting more public telephone booths in the streets of Liverpool?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): The delay in the installation of public telephone kiosks at Liverpool is due to the difficulty of obtaining consents for sites from the Corporation. Out of nearly 70 recent applications made for sites, only 11 consents have been received. I hope that further negotiations will prove more fruitful.

OVERSEA TELEPHONE SERVICE (SOUTH AMERICA).

Captain CAZALET: 54.
asked the Postmaster-General when telephonic communication will be established between this country and the Argentine?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am not yet in a position to make a definite statement on this subject.

Captain CAZALET: Is it not the fact that nearly every important country in Europe has had telephonic communication with the Argentine, in some cases for years, and in every case for many months, and that we are the only exception?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I may say that we have telephonic communication, but not direct telephonic communication. Only two countries in Europe have direct telephonic communication.

CABLE AND WIRELESS RATES (ARGENTINA).

Captain CAZALET: 55.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he contemplates taking any steps to carry out the recommendations of the D'Abernon Report in
regard to the charges for telegraphic communications between this country and South America?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I have noted the complaints of the D Abernon Committee that the cable and wireless rates from the Argentine to London are higher than the rates to New York and Berlin and that the matter calls for immediate attention. This, however, is not a case in which the Post Office can lower the rates, as these are not Post Office services but services carried out by the Imperial and International Communications Company. The matter is under the consideration of the Imperial Communications Advisory Committee who have certain functions in regard to the company's rates.

Captain CAZALET: Does the hon. Gentleman think that there will be alteration by way of a redaction of these rates within any reasonable time?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Of course, an alteration will be effected, if the Communications Company do so. I may say that some weeks ago I called their attention to this matter, and some days ago I sent them a copy of the D'Abernon Committee's remarks about it, and the matter is now being negotiated between them and the Imperial Communications Advisory Committee.

STAFF ACCOMMODATION, ENDELL STREET.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: 56.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is prepared to have the premises in the old workhouse in Endell Street, in which are employed staff belonging to his Department, inspected by an independent medical authority with a view to determining whether the circumstances in which the staff there work are dangerous to their health?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: A very careful inspection has already been made. I am taking certain steps to improve the sanitary arrangements, but I do not think that a further inspection will add to our information.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (CHAIRMAN).

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: 57.
asked the Postmaster-General whether it is yet decided who is to be appointed Chairman of the British Broad-casting Corporation?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: No, Sir. An appointment has not yet been made.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: If I put this question down in a week's time, can I get an answer then?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: No, Sir. I may point out to the hon. Baronet that the present Chairman does not take up his new appointment for at least eight or nine months, and that there is no urgency in the matter.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: we have an assurance that this appointment will not be made before we have a chance of finding out a little more about it?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The appointment will be made in exactly the same way as a similar appointment was made by the last Government.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that whoever is appointed will not permit educational and political cranks to make use of broadcasting, in furthering their opinions?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

DEPARTMENTS CLOSED, LONDON.

Mr. DAY: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of departments closed in the London area during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and the decrease of head teachers during the same period?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): Twenty-seven departments in London public elementary schools were reported to the Board as closed or amalgamated with other departments during the year ended the 28th February last. Eleven new departments were opened, and there was, therefore, a net decrease of 16 in the number of head teacher posts.

TRAVELLING LIBRARIES.

Mr. SORENSEN: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is the number of local authorities with travelling libraries: the number of books circulated; the number who take advantage of such facilities when available; and the total annual cost of the service?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Fifty-five county authorities in England and Wales provide a rural library service under which books are circulated to villages either by library vans or by other means. The total cost of this service in 1928–29 was about £138,000. No returns are furnished to the Board which would enable me to answer the remaining parts of the question, but I may perhaps refer my hon. Friend to the report of the Library Association on county libraries, which contains some unofficial information on the points raised.

SUNDERLAND (PROGRAMME).

Mr. ALFRED SMITH (for Dr. PHILLIPS): 62.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has yet received from the local education authority of Sunderland their programme for the next three years; and whether he is satisfied that sufficient provision has been made for the children under five?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have received the programme of the Sunderland Local Education Authority. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] It make no special provision for children under five, having been drawn up before the authority received the circular on this subject which was issued by the Minister of Health and myself last December.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Speak up, we cannot hear.

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have, therefore, asked the Authority to inform me what action they propose to take in the matter.

Mr. PYBUS: On a point of Order. May I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker? On account of the noise behind, it is impossible to hear what is being said.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I ask a supplementary question—[interruption].

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought that the hon. and learned Member said that he could not hear the answer.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: But may I ask a supplementary question to the original question?

Mr. SPEAKER: Supplementary questions are only asked in order to elucidate the answer.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask, for the benefit of those Members who did not hear the reply, for the reply to be repeated?

PALESTINE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: (by Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to make a statement in respect to policy in Palestine?

The PRIME MINISTER: Copies of the Report of the Palestine Commission of Inquiry will be in the hands of hon. Members this evening. I hope to be in a position to make a preliminary statement on Thursday next, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to address a further question to me on that day. The Government is now studying the Report, and is in consultation with the parties concerned.

BRITISH ARMY (CADET UNITS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether in future it will be illegal for cadet units to wear military uniform?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): The wearing of military uniform by cadet corps will not be allowed after the camps arranged for this year.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that is a very unfortunate decision, and that it will have the effect of discouraging recruiting?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will these units be allowed to wear out the uniforms which they now have?

Mr. SHAW: As long as the uniforms do not contain the badges of the Service, perhaps arrangements may be made.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Can they wear kilts?

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Will the cadet corps be allowed to have the use of military equipment for their camps this year?

Mr. SHAW: After this year, the intention of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—the decision of the House was that these corps should cease to be semi-military in character.

Mr. BRACKEN: Will any refund be made to boys who, out of their small means, have bought their own uniforms?

Sir W. DAVISON: Will these corps be allowed to wear these uniforms, if the uniforms are provided at their own expense or by others?

Mr. SHAW: These corps will be in exactly the same position as any other private individual with regard to wearing the uniform of His Majesty's Forces.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the corps be allowed to go on land owned by the Government for exercise?

CINEMATOGRAPH FILM "MOTHER"

Sir K. WOOD: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Russian film, "Mother," has been refused a certificate by the British Board of Film Censors, that the London County Council has refused permission for it to be exhibited, and that the West Ham Town Council has decided to allow the film to be publicly exhibited; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): I am aware that the British Board of Film Censors has refused its certificate for this film. I understand that the London County Council recently refused to allow it to be shown on a Sunday, but has not yet decided whether to permit or to refuse to permit its general exhibition. The conditions under which films may be exhibited are for the local authorities to determine, and I have no power to interfere with the discretion which has been exercised by the West Hail Town Council in this matter.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it not a very unfortunate state of affairs, when the film censor has definitely prohibited this film that a minor body like the West Ham Town Council should allow it?

Mr. CLYNES: The decision of the film censor has not prevented the exhibition
of many films, and, as I say, in this matter I have neither the power nor the wish to interfere.

Miss WILKINSON: In view of the confusion that is likely to arise under the present state of affairs, does not my right hon. Friend consider it urgently necessary to set up a committee of inquiry into the whole question of the licensing of films?

Mr. CLYNES: In this particular instance, there does not appear to be any reason for instituting an inquiry.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, for what useful purpose does the film censor act?

BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS.

Mr. SORENSEN: 68.
asked the Home Secretary the number of male and female inhabitants, respectively, in Borstal institutions; the length of time they have to serve; the number who have attempted to escape; the percentage who earn punishment for misconduct; and whether whipping is at any time employed as a punishment?

Mr. CLYNES: During 1928 the daily average population of the Borstal institutions was 1,203 males and 85 females. The sentences were from two to three years; escapes or attempted escapes by males numbered 56, and by females three. The punishments for misconduct of males numbered 977, including two birchings, and of females 64, but as some offended more or less often, and others rarely, if at all, the percentage of offenders can not be stated. Whipping cannot be ordered for females at all; or for males as an ordinary punishment, but only for such offences as gross personal violence to officers.

Mr. SORENSEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider Whether whipping should ever be allowed?

Mr. BENSON: Can my right hon. Friend say whether whipping is allowed without his confirmation, or whether, as in the case of the "cat," he has to give his sanction?

Mr. CLYNES: It is no part of my duty, I am glad to say, to confirm these orders for whipping.

Major COLFOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that these boys, like a great many other boys in the country, would be all the better for being whipped more often?

DEATH SENTENCES (MENTAL DEFECTIVES).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 69.
asked the Home Secretary how many of the persons sentenced to death in England and Wales during the 10 years prior to 1929 had their sentences of death commuted on the ground that they were certifiable as mental defectives under the Mental Deficiency Acts?

Mr. CLYNES: No case can be traced in which that was the sole ground, but in various cases a degree of mental deficiency was considered, with other grounds, in advising commutation.

CHARING CROSS BRIDGE (MODEL).

Sir W. DAVISON: 74.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, having regard to the great interest taken by the public in the proposed new bridge at Charing Cross and the approaches thereto, arrangements can be made for the model which has been prepared for the information of the committee now dealing with the matter to be viewed by the public when the committee are not sitting?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have consulted the authorities of the House and the London County Council, whose property the model is, and I find that it would be extremely inconvenient, so long as the model is required by the committee, to permit the public at large to have access to examine it. I am, however, communicating further with the authorities of the House in the matter, and will let the hon. Member know the result.

Sir W. DAVISON: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Will he consider whether it could be made available for the public on Saturdays, when the Palace of Westminster is open to the public?

Mr. MORRISON: That is one of the questions that I will keep in mind.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (SICKNESS CERTIFICATES).

Sir K. WOOD: 50.
asked the Minister of Health whether there has been any evidence lately brought to his notice of the laxity of certain doctors in issuing sickness certificates under the National Health Insurance Act; and whether it is proposed to issue any new regulation in connection therewith?

Miss LAWRENCE: This subject has been under discussion with representatives of those concerned for a considerable time, and the draft of a new regulation with respect to the issue of medical certificates for National Health Insurance purposes will be published at a very early date.

Mr. MILLS: Will the hon. Lady review the conditions under which panel patients already under one doctor who are not receiving efficient attention are precluded from changing doctors, except by consent of the first doctor, and after a, period of time?

Miss LAWRENCE: That raises quite another question, but I will inform my right hon. Friend of what my hon. Friend says.

HOUSING (LIVERPOOL CORPORATION SCHEMES).

Miss RATHBONE: 51.
asked the Minister of Health the total estimated cost, cost per house, and deficit per house incurred on the South-hill Road housing scheme and Melrose Road housing scheme carried out by the Liverpool Corporation?

Miss LAWRENCE: The South-hill Road and Melrose Road schemes are rehousing schemes to provide for displaced persons from the Burlington Street clearance area. Final accounts for these schemes have not been received, but the Liverpool Corporation have recently furnished estimates as follows:

—
South-hill Road rehousing site.
Melrose Road rehousing site.


Total estimated cost.
£131,653
£181,605


Estimated cost per tenement.
£665
£698


Estimated deficit per tenement.
£23 15s.
£25 10s.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. S. BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister how far he proposes going to-night in the event of his Motion being carried?

The PRIME MINISTER: The object of the Motion is to ensure that the Speaker is moved out of the Chair, and the four Buildings Estimates on the Paper disposed of in Committee of Supply at this day's sitting. In addition, we want the Second Reading of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill and the Report stage of the Unemployment Insurance Bill Money Resolution which are excepted business, and which, it is hoped, will not occupy more than a, few minutes.

Mr. BALDWIN: I have one further question. The right hon. Gentleman was not able to be in his place on Thursday when I asked a question about the Easter holidays. I do not know whether he is in a, position yet to say anything about that. Perhaps if he is not, he will be good enough to let me know when he would like a question on that subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that I could answer, but I should be a little more certain if the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to put the question to me to-morrow. I would like to have a few more minutes' consideration.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided, Ayes, 179; Noes, 183.

Division No. 237.]
AYES.
[3.49 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Attlee, Clement Richard
Bennett, William (Battersea. South)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Benson. G.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Barr, James
Bowen, J. W.


Alpass, J. H.
Batey, Joseph
Bowerman, Rt. Nan. Charles W.


Ammon, Charles George
Bellamy, Albert
Brockway, A. Fenner


Arnott, John
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Kennedy, Thomas
Richards, R.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Roberts, Rt.Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Caine, Derwent Hail.
Knight, Holford
Romerll, H. G.


Cameron, A. G.
Lang, Gordon
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rowson, Guy


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lawrence, Susan
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Chater, Daniel
Leach, W.
Sanders, W. S.


Church, Major A. G.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Sandham, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Scurr, John


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lees, J.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cove, William G.
Logan, David Gilbert
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Daggar, George
Longbottom, A. W.
Sherwood, G. H.



Dallas, George
Longden, F.
Shleis, Dr. Drummond


Dalton, Hugh
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shillaker, J. F.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, Thomas
Shinwell, E.


Day, Harry
Lunn, William
Simmons, C. J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Dickson, T.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Duncan, Charles
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Ede, James Chuter
McElwee, A.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Edmunds, J. E.
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Elmley, Viscount
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
March, S.
Sorensen, R.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Markham, S. F.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Gillett, George M.
Marley, J.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Glassey, A. E.
Marshall, Fred
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Gossling, A. G.
Mathers, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Gould, F.
Matters, L. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maxton, James
Thurtie, Ernest


Groves, Thomas E.
Messer, Fred
Tinker, John Joseph


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mills, J. E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Montague, Frederick
Vlant, S. P.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Walker, J.


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morley, Ralph
Wallace, H. W.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
West, F. R.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Muggerldge, H. T.
Whiteley, Wilfrld (Birm., Ladywood)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Oldfield, J. R.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Herrlotts, J. 
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Paling, Wilfrid
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hoffman, P. C.
Palmer, E. T.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hopkin, Daniel
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Horrabin, J. F.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Isaacs, George
Pole, Major D. G.
Wright, W. (Ruthergien)


Johnston, Thomas
Potts, John S.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Pybus, Percy John



Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Kelly, W. T.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes


NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Davison, Sir W. H.(Kensington, S.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Butler, R. A.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Eden, Captain Anthony


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.)


Atkinson, C.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Baille-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fails, Sir Bertram G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bowdley)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Ferguson, Sir John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Fielden, E. B.


Bainlel, Lord
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Forestier Walker, Sir L.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Christie, J. A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Beaumont, M. W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Bellaire, Commander Carlyon
Colfox, Major William Philip
Ganzoni, Sir John


Berry, Sir George
Colman, N. C. D.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Colville, Major D. J.
Gower, Sir Robert


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Grace, John


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Boyce, H. L.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Bracken, B.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Buchan, John
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)




Hammersley, S. S.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Smithers, Waldron


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hartington, Marquess of
Muirhead, A. J.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
O'Neill, Sir H.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Peaks, Capt. Osbert
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Penny, Sir George
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Hurd, Percy A.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Iveagh, Countess of
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Turton, Robert Hugh


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ramsbotham, H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Remer, John R.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'[...])
Wayland, Sir William A.


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Wells, Sydney R.


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Long, Major Eric
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Lymington, Viscount
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Withers, Sir John James


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Salmon, Major I.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Macquisten, F. A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Womersley, W. J.


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Meller, R. J.
Savery, S. S.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome



Mond, Hon. Henry
Simms, Major-General J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Frederick Thomson.


Morden, Col. W. Grant

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
After the decision to which the House has just come we should only be following precedent if the House were to adjourn, in order to give the Prime Minister an opportunity of considering his position.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot move the Adjournment of the House.

Commander Sir BOLTON BYRES MONSELL: On a point of Order. When a Motion moved by the Prime Minister is defeated in the House of Commons, is it not right or in order for the Opposition to discuss the question on a Motion for the Adjournment?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know that the fact of the Government being defeated on this Motion makes any difference to the Rules of the House.

POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPER-ANNUATION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896," presented by Dr. Vernon Davies; supported by Dr. Bentham, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Dr.
Hastings, Dr. Morris-Jones, Dr. Salter; and Dr. John Williams; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1930.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask leave to move to Report Progress.

Mr. SPEAKER: That Motion is not in order. The Motion should be, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I think the right hon. Gentleman is in too big a hurry. I moved that the Eleven o'clock Rule be suspended in respect of certain business. The House has declined to suspend the Rule; therefore, the House will go on until Eleven o'clock.

Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes. 175; Noes, 185.

Original Question again proposed.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).

Major COLVILLE: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House regrets that the policy of the Government with regard to conscientious ob-
jectors is contrary to the spirit of the policy adopted hitherto by successive Governments since the War with regard to ex-service men and constitutes a reversal of such policy.
The fortune of the Ballot has given me the opportunity to raise a subject about which we on this side of the House feel very keenly. We have been dealing in this House in the past few weeks with subjects which have reference to very
large numbers of people. We have been dealing with questions of unemployment insurance and pensions affecting millions, but to-day the subject which I am introducing affects a relatively small number of people. None the less, it is of the very utmost importance, because it affects a great principle. We in this party consider that those men who served their country during the time of the War deserve from the State more than those men who, though perfectly fit and eligible in every way declined to do so. That is the principle for which we stand, and it is the principle which this Government, in sharp distinction to every other Government since the War, within a few weeks of coming into office, have thought fit to violate. That is the principle which has induced us to raise this question to-day in the House of Commons. I have not been long in the House of Commons, but I have formed one impression, that where bad temper and high feeling come in, common sense is apt to fly out. Yet it would be difficult to prevent strong feeling coming into this Debate, so strongly do we feel on this question. I propose to do my best, carefully and without heat, to put before the House the history and the facts of this case and allow the House to form a fair judgment upon it.
Broadly speaking, there were two classes of conscientious objectors in the Civil Service. The first class is composed of those who were unwilling to serve in the Fighting Forces but who served elsewhere. The second class is composed of those who refused to serve at all in any kind of Force or in any form whatever. The first class, those who were unwilling to shed blood, but who were willing to serve in some non-combatant service or some ambulance service, were regarded as entirely outside the picture. They were regarded as ex-service men. They were reinstated to full privileges with no disabilities whatever, and we may take them as being entirely outside the picture. They do not require to have reference made to them any more. We may not see eye to eye with their views about serving in the Fighting Forces, but we do appreciate, at any rate, that they were willing to serve in same other capacity, which they did, and that they were treated and accorded full privileges.
There is another class who, though fit and able, refused to serve in any part of His Majesty's Service whatsoever; that is the class with which we are concerned to-day, and that is the class which the Government have singled out for special treatment. There were about 50 of the first class, and of the second class with which I am now dealing there were in round figures about 300. Those 300 men obtained exemption from military service, and either they remained in their posts in the Civil Service on a temporary basis or were put to work elsewhere. At the end of the War, 230 of those men were re-established in their posts. Seventy of them did not get back, and were either discharged on account of unsatisfactory conduct or tendered their resignation. About 230 of them came back with full privileges except the ones which I shall mention.
The disabilities which still remain in regard to those 230 conscientious objectors were as follows. In the first place, the years of their exemption from military service when they refused to join the Army and had to be employed elsewhere, were not to count for pension or increment of salary. Secondly, in accordance with the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 20th July, 1918, they were not to be promoted over the heads of ex-service men in the Civil Service, a pledge which was honoured by every Government since the War until the present Government came into office. These terms were retained, and were retained through those years, but they have not been retained without being made the subject of an inquiry.
There was in 1922 a special Select Committee set up to examine this question. That Committee examined the question most carefully and produced a unanimous Report. Several Member of that Committee are still Members of this House. The Lord Privy Seal, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and the hon. and gallant Member for Banff-shire (Major Wood) were Members of that Committee, and they all signed that Report. I trust that this Amendment will be pressed to a Division, and I shall watch with interest which way those three Members vote. I will now read from the unanimous Report of the Committee which dealt with this question in 1922. I think the matter is of such importance
that I ought to read the recommendations of the Committee. They were as follow:
(1) Strictly to enforce in every Government Department the pledge given on behalf of the Government to Sir John Butcher in the House of Commons on the 9th July, 1918, and renewed in the Treasury Letter of 18th August, 1920, that 'Conscientious objectors who are employed in the Civil Service and who have refused to serve in the Army shall not be promoted over the heads of civil servants who have served or are serving in the Army.'
(2) To secure that if any reduction in the numbers of the permanent staff of any Department in the Civil Service takes place at any time hereafter, such a reduction shall be made first at the expense of any conscientious objectors serving in that Department.
Another recommendation of the Committee was that
Any conscientious objectors who have already been discharged, or who have resigned from the Civil Service, shall not be reinstated, and no applications for entry in the Civil Service shall be entertained from conscientious objectors who, though available for service, refused to serve in the Great War.
There is no doubt as to the meaning and purport of this report, which is perfectly clear to every hon. Member of this House. Now I come to the position which has been created at the present time by the Government. On the 10th September last—I want the House to notice the date, because it was a time when the House of Commons was not sitting—a circular was issued, and that circular made three important changes in the position of conscientious objectors officially. I will read a few words from the circular.
His Majesty's Government have decided that, except in the defence Departments, no person shall in future be ineligible for appointment to any post in the Civil Service by reason of the fact that when called upon under the provisions of the Military Service Acts, 1916 to 1918, he declined to serve in His Majesty's Forces on the grounds of conscientious objection.
That is a direct contradiction of the terms of the report. Reference is also made to the pledge in regard to promotion of conscientious objectors over the heads of ex-service men, and on this question the circular says:
I am to inform you that it has been decided that this undertaking should now be abrogated, and that the fact that a civil servant was a conscientious objector should no longer be regarded as a bar to his promotion.
[HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite cheer that remark, but I feel sure that those are not the views held by the majority of the people of Great Britain. As regards increments, the circular states:
As regards increment, I am to authorise you to reassess, as from the 1st August, 1929, the existing emoluments of any officers restored to full established privileges under the provisions of the Circular, 18th August, 1920, on the basis of the emoluments which such officers would now be receiving had the period of suspension counted for increment. As regards pension, I am to say that, subject to the fulfilment of the requirements of the Superannuation Acts, service during the period of suspension from establishment will be taken into account in the calculation of pension.
The result is that the findings of the committee of 1922 have been directly negatived by the circular which was sent out by the Treasury in September last. Let us examine what is the effect of this change. It means that conscientious objectors may be promoted over the heads of ex-service men. The effect, so far as increment and pension are concerned, is the same as if the war had not been, except that the years since the war are not available for back pay. I am quite aware that the conscientious objectors are a small number compared with the large number of ex-service men, and it cannot be said that they constitute a grave menace to the prospects of ex-service men in regard to numbers.
The conscientious objectors number about 230 at the most. In the Civil Service we have 148,000 ex-service men of whom no less than 43,000 are disabled. Of the total numbers of the male staff in the Civil Service, no less than 48.7 per cent. are ex-service men. Therefore, it would be an exaggeration to say that the action which has been authorised by the Government with regard to conscientious objectors constitutes a very grave risk to the prospects of ex-service men, but at any rate the action of the Government breaks across a principle which we have always tried to maintain namely, that the man who has served his country deserves more consideration from the State than the man who has refused to do so.
What promise were the Government fulfilling when they sent out this circular? What mandate were they endeavouring to carry out? It has not been the practice of the present Government to
hide its light under a bushel. When the Coal Mines Bill was introduced it was because the miners were promised shorter hours. When they established diplomatic relations with Russia it was because certain promises were made, but I would like to ask when did the Government promise conscientious objectors that by administrative action they would be promoted over the heads of ex-service men? If the Government promised to do that at the election, why did they not carry it out with a flourish of trumpets? Why was the circular, contradicting everything that had been done in the past, sent out when the House was not sitting? This was not done in answer to any promise or in fulfilment of any pledge, and I should like the Government to say why they found it necessary to take such a step. The action of the Government has brought into very sharp contrast the position of certain ex-service men who are still in the Civil Service, if after a period of 12 years we are going to make exceptions in the case of certain people, because that will throw open the whole question of the position of certain ex-service men in the Civil Service. That is a point to be considered in the light of what is now being done.
There are 15,000 ex-service men in the Civil Service who held temporary appointments now taken on the basis of full establishment which has been granted as a result of certain inquiries, but these men, although on a full establishment basis, have never been allowed to count their temporary service towards increment or pension. Temporary service has never been allowed to be counted towards increment or pension, nor has war service been allowed to count, although that is a point which might very well be considered by the Government. Again, we have the case of the men who joined the Army without permission. There are a certain number of civil servants who left their posts without permission at the commencement of the War and joined the Army, and those men are under a penalty. Those men joined the Army out of pure patriotism without the permission of their chiefs, and they are still under a disability, as compared with civil servants who joined with permission, and who received their civil pay, less the amount of their Army pay. The
men who joined without permission did not receive that civil pay until certain action made it possible for them to receive it from January, 1918. I contend that the Government must reopen and examine that claim also. If they are going to take selective action, as they have done, going back over a period of years, what about these ex-service men? Which of the two classes did better service to the country during the War?
There are other cases of disability. We are told that the reason why they have not been dealt with by this Government and by previous Governments has been on account of finance. For instance, there is the question of pensions. There is the question of the ex-ranker officers, and there are questions of pensions which have been held up. My contention is that, if the Government have money available, as they evidently have, to give to this class of conscientious objectors, they must consider the re-opening and examination of all such claims as those to which I have now referred.
I am prepared to meet certain arguments on this question from certain quarters of the House. In the first place, I am expecting to hear arguments from those who claim to represent the civil servants of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] Evidently, I shall not be disappointed. I am expecting those who will speak later on this question to say that the ex-service men—the permanent ex-service servants—in the Civil Service do not mind this action being taken. I am prepared to say that that is not the unanimous feeling at all, but, even if it were, it does not absolve the Government from their duty towards these men. The soldier, according to my own knowledge, is the best-natured and most forgiving of God's creatures, and he is able to forgive a good deal, so that that argument will not hold water in the slightest degree with me or with anyone else on this side. [Interruption.] Rather does it put a heavier onus on the Government to see that fair play is given to the ex-service men in the Departments. I would say, further, to those who represent the civil servants, that, if they are not prepared to-day to indicate that they also are willing to take up and reopen the cases of ex-service men such as I have referred to, their arguments will not have
the same weight as they would if they were prepared to take up these questions, which have now been thrown into relief by the action of the Government.
There is another quarter from which I am expecting an answer on this question. I am expecting the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to say, "Efficiency." I put a question to-day, purposely, and I got exactly the answer that I wanted, namely, "Efficiency." It will, however, be very hard, I think, to convince this House that within this great Service, in which no fewer than 228,000 men are employed, these 200 conscientious objectors are so absolutely pre-eminent in ability, or are so essential to the service of the country, that it is necessary to promote them over the heads of ex-service men, or otherwise the country would suffer. It will be very hard to convince the House of that. The Financial Secretary will have to prove that it is necessary in the interests of efficiency in this country to make this change.
In the next place, I am expecting to hear that the Military Service Act gives these men a certain legal status as conscientious objectors. With regard to that point, I would say that all the Acts on the Statute Book would not give these men a status equal to that of the men who did serve in the Army in time of war, nor can any action that the Government may take give them an equal status in the eyes of the country in general. Is it fair to claim that these men only were the men of conscience at that time? Surely it must be realised that thousands upon thousands of men whose very souls abhorred war went to serve their country in time of war. They hated war, and yet they went voluntarily or when they were called up, and they went, not only once, but they went back again with wound stripes on their arms. They went because they thought it was their duty. I hope that the House will not be treated to any suggestion to-day that only this handful of men were the real lovers of peace. [An HON. MEMBER: "No one has suggested it."]
Twelve years have passed, and memories grow short, but I would ask hon. Members to cast their minds back to 12 years ago to-day. It was one of the most critical periods of the War, the period of the German offensive of
1918. At that time there were many civil servants serving in France who had been wounded before, and who went back to fight again in the firing line; and yet we have this handful of men who thought it necessary to refuse for the sake of their beliefs—I am not going to say their religious beliefs, because that would be to suggest that there were no religious men in the Army—[Interruption]. If hon. Members will cast their minds back to that time, I think they will agree with me that those who did serve deserve consideration at the hands of His Majesty's Government.
I would ask the Government, in conclusion, will they take steps to rectify the anomalous position which they have now created, in singling out conscientious objectors for special treatment 12 years after the War, by according to ex-service men full and sympathetic reconsideration of their claims, which are now thrown into strong relief by this action? If they will do this, my Amendment will have served a good purpose. If they will not, we shall know, and all the country will know, which way their sympathy lies. The actions of Governments do not pass into oblivion; they pass into history. Is it to be written that the Labour party of Great Britain—that is a proud name, and they have yet to prove themselves worthy of it—that the Labour party of Great Britain, on its first real approach to power, within a few weeks of coming into office, at a time when the House was not sitting, thought fit to break faith with the ex-service men of this country in order to further the interests of those who were found wanting in the hour of the country's need? The answer to that question must be given to-day in this House, and on this Motion. I beg to move.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am particularly glad to have the opportunity of seconding this Amendment, which has been moved so ably and with such great moderation by my hon. and gallant Friend, because a number of representations have been made to me on this question. I do not believe that there is any one action of the Government which has so disturbed public opinion as this one. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend need make no apology for bringing forward this ques-
tion, and, if hon. Members opposite wish for any proof of what I am saying, I would mention that the British Legion have approached me on this matter, and my own branch has asked me particularly to raise it at the earliest possible moment in the House of Commons. I have heard it mentioned that the Civil servants themselves do not mind what is being done, but I happen to read a certain magazine which is issued by the ex-service Civil servants, called the "Live Wire," in which, in the number following the issue of this notorious Circular, E. 1206, these words occur:
This Circular ought to be printed in blood, as a symbol of the betrayal in principle of the men who gave their all during the War.
Therefore I do say that there is a very strong body of opinion in this country which has grave misgivings as to the action of the Government in this respect. As the Mover of the Amendment has said, it is the principle rather than the actual number concerned in which we are more particularly interested in the House at the present moment. The actual number of conscientious objectors who have been promoted, as stated in answer to a question to-day, is only three. I think that I asked one of the first questions in the House in regard to this particular Circular, and, when I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many men this would affect, he replied, using a rather extraordinary phrase, that it would have no appreciable effect on promotion. Certainly the principle remains, whether the effect is appreciable or inappreciable.
It is necessary, in order to place the case fairly before the House, just to sum up what has taken place during and since the War in regard to conscientious objectors in the Civil Service. I will not do so in any detail, because that particular part of the question has been admirably put by my hon. and gallant Friend. The first Circular issued was that of the 10th February, 1917, and there was a further one on the 11th August, 1919. The effect of both of these Circulars was that conscientious objectors became to all intents and purposes disestablished. I want the House to realise that the Government, in taking that action, said to these conscientious objectors in effect, "If you will not, at this great emergency, help the Government,
which is the country, the Government will not help you." That is roughly, in very plain words, what was said. To put it in another way, it meant that if these men would not undertake the unpleasant part of their obligation of citizenship, they should not later on participate in the advantages which would accrue to them from being citizens, and they certainly should not gain. That is the reason, put in very plain words, for the action which was taken under these two Circulars.
The next move was after the War, when a Circular was issued on the 18th August, 1920, under which these men were restored to establishment. I understand that, of a total of 300, 230 were thus restored as from the 1st April, 1920. But two important provisos were made. The first was that the period of suspension should not count for pension, and the second was that there would be certain restrictions on their eligibility for promotion over ex-service men. These two provisos are being over-ruled by the Circular about which we are complaining this afternoon. The next stage in the history of the conscientious objectors was the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in July, 1918, which explicity laid it down that conscientious objectors who were employed in the Civil Service, and who refused to serve in the Army, should not be promoted over the heads of civil servants who had served or were serving in the Army. I make no excuse for repeating that pledge, because it is the essence of the matter.
Then came the Select Committee of 1922, which was presided over by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer); and I am sure that the House will join with me in sympathising with my hon. and gallant Friend, who, owing to an injury, is unable to be present in the House. Otherwise, I know that he was particularly anxious to speak on this question, on which he is very keen. As the Mover of the Amendment has said, the recommendation made by the Select Committee was unanimous, and the Lord Privy Seal, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood), were members of that Committee. They recommended unani-
mously that this pledge should be enforced, and also that, if any reduction was to be made, it should come from the conscientious objectors, and not from the ex-service men.
We now come to the present time, and the present Government. At a time when a large number of claims have been put forward on behalf of men in the Civil Service who served in the War, the Government have taken it upon themselves to issue this Circular, and to say that the conscientious objectors shall be freed from any disabilities under which they were labouring. A claim was put forward a short time ago on behalf of certain men who, having passed their Civil Service examination, then joined the Army, and, after their war service was over, entered the Civil Service. A claim was put forward that their period of service in the Army should count for pension and other rights, and what was the answer of the Government? It was, "There is a Royal Commission sitting on the Civil Service. You must put your case before them and wait for their decision." But when the conscientious objectors come before the Government and ask them for their disability to be removed, do they say, "You must wait for the Royal Commission and put your case before them?" Not at all. They can have everything they want. The conscientious objectors in this case are the pampered darlings of the Government.
Another point that interested me was a remark at Question Time by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 5th December. In reply to a supplementary question he said:
The matter had to be reviewed after a time. Obviously it could not go on for ever."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1929; col. 2532, Vol. 232.]
Why can it not go on for ever? Certain disabilities were put on during the War, that the period of service was not to count for pension rights. Why, when the time comes for that promise to be carried out, are we to be told that this period is, after all, to count for pension rights and that these conscientious objectors are to be free from any disability which they have? It looks from that statement as if we are to be told that this is merely the breaking of another promise made in time of war to ex-service men. At that time the Government said, "You have
no war service and you will have no pension rights during the War and no promotion." That was a definite pledge. Now that the War has been over for some time, that promise is swept away by means of a Circular, and the Secretary to the Treasury says, "obviously it could not go on for ever." In other words, that promise has now been made a scrap of paper. It is this kind of sweeping away of definite pledges made to the House at different periods of its history, particularly of recent years, that causes that lack of faith which people are getting in Parliament and in Governments. Again and again the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has told me there is no question of breaking a pledge. I ask him point blank, was this promise made, that if these people did not go to the war their service during that time was not to count for pension. If it was made that circular abrogated it and, therefore, the pledge has undoubtedly been broken. I cannot think why the Government felt it necessary to go out of its way to do anything in the matter at all. It was not a time, I should have thought, when they would want to stir up trouble of that kind for themselves. I look upon this as a direct betrayal of the promise made to the soldiers when they went to the War, and I hope the House will vote for the Amendment and insist on Parliament honouring its pledged word and its obligations.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: The course of this Debate will be watched very closely indeed by all grades in the Civil Service. They number altogether some 300,000 men and women. In the interests of the Civil Service as a whole it is desirable that the Debate should be as passionless as we can make it. I mean by that that nothing so disturbs the Civil Service as the idea that it will be dealt with in a spirit of violent attack or undiscriminating defence within the House. I should like to pay this tribute to the Mover of the Amendment, that his speech seems to me to be drawn in terms of argument rather than abuse and, although I am going to express an entirely contrary view, I hope I shall put it in the same argumentative way in which he moved his Amendment. For the purpose of the Debate we ought to assume that everyone who joined the Army did so from an overwhelming sense of duty. I think also we ought to assume
that those who took up the position of conscientious objectors did so from a sense of duty. Otherwise, if the bona fides of the conscientious objector are to be attacked, and people on this side attack the bona fides of the volunteer soldier, we are going to get precisely that atmosphere of passion that this Debate ought to be kept clear of. I, therefore, propose to assume that both types were entirely honest and conscientious in the decision they reached about their respective positions.
The next thing I should like to say is this. What is at stake to-day is not the merits of the position of the conscientious objector. Two thousand years have not served to determine whether the conscientious objector's position is a sound one or not. It is true that, in a world which still puts its faith in arms, the position of the conscientious objector is an unpleasant and an unpopular one but it is entirely unsafe to assume that the conscientious objector is wrong and the advocate of armed force right. That issue still has to be settled in the history of the world. If I may permit myself an observation which is not intended to be provocative, I feet that, the more force is resorted to, the more it will require to be resorted to, and all the evidence of civilisation is in that direction. The issue is not that. The issue is, shall the State as employer punish people for doing something which the State has said they have a right to do?
I am not concerned to discuss whether the decision was right or wrong, but the State decided that those men who felt a conscientious objection to the exercise of armed force might plead that conviction, and that the pleading of it, if it were judged to be honest, could produce the result of exempting them from military service. If you punish a civil servant for being a conscientious objector, what it really means is that the State as employer is punishing a man for doing what the State as State says he has a perfect right to do. That seems to me to be a thoroughly illogical and unjust situation. Parliament cannot declare that conscientious objection is a valid and right thing and then punish those of its citizens who happen to be serving in the Civil Service because they proclaim that they are conscientious objectors.
Reference has been made to the fact that what the Government has done is a departure from the terms of the reports of earlier committees on the subject. Let me at once concede that that is the case, but let me also suggest that the spirit of the years immediately following the War was not a judicial spirit. It was a spirit in which the passions and hates of the War period still remained at a considerable height, and reports drafted under the conditions that, prevailed immediately after the War are not likely to be judicial or fair documents. I think it is to the credit of the Civil Service Trade Union movement that it has consistently refused to lend itself to the persecution of this handful of men. I find in the report of the very committee to which the Mover of the Amendment referred, apart from the quotations he made, the following passage:
The representatives of the three Civil Service organisations concerned stated that their membership contained a large percentage of ex-service men, and they expressed the opinion that the Civil Service conscientious objectors have already been sufficiently penalised and that no further action in regard to them shall be taken.
I am a Civil Service Trade Union official, and I was not during the War period a conscientious objector. I make that statement to make my own position perfectly clear. But of my own organisation, which contains something like 20,000 men, the overwhelming majority of whom are ex-service men of my own class, the old assistant clerks class, something like 94 per cent. served in the Army. In other words, for practical purposes our male membership consists almost entirely of ex-service men. Those ex-service men from 1919 onwards have sharply dissented from the penalties imposed upon the conscientious objectors. I remember a meeting of the Civil Service Alliance in 1920. As soon as the ex-service men came back from the Front you found their voices becoming effective in disagreeing with what the Government had done with regard to these conscientious objectors.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman who seconded the Amendment quoted evidence of a different view from within the Civil Service and quoted a paper published by the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants called "The Live Wire." If I may say so without offence, I should like to
advise Members never to take Civil Service opinion from the pages of that paper. It represents an organisation. consisting of at the outside some 6,000 members out of 150,000 ex-service men in the Civil Service. It neither represents the view of ex-service civil servants nor of anything but that handful of 6,000, irrespective of ex-service men or non-service men. The great unions of the Civil Service, like the union for which the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. Bowen) speaks, the Union of Post Office Workers, and unions like my own, the Civil Service Clerical Association, throughout have taken the view that this was a wrong and unjust thing.
5.0 P.M.
Why have we taken that view? Why have our ex-service members taken that view? First, for the reason I have given, that this is not justice but a parody of justice. Secondly, there is this other and very important reason. If to-day you penalise a man whose views on war you dislike, to-morrow you will be penalising a man whose views on politics you dislike; the day after, you will be penalising the man whose views on birth control you dislike, and the day after that you will be penalising people whose views on religion you dislike. You cannot have the public service which you expect to get in this country if people are to be penalised because the view that they take is a view which is not popular in the community at large. For these reasons ex-service men, as much as any other class, oppose the victimisation which has been imposed upon these men, and welcome the steps which have been taken by the Government to minimise that victimisation. May I say to the Financial Secretary—critical as I have sometimes been of the views and actions of the Front Bench, and will be again unless they improve—that I want to compliment the Government on the stand that they have taken on this matter. It would be an amazing situation if the highest offices of the State, like the Prime Ministership and the Chancellor of the Exchequership, should be open for men who took a very strong anti-war view While the War was on, and that the humble position of £2 or £3 a week should not be available to a postman or a clerk in the Civil Service who had expressed conscientious objection to war.
My one regret about the Front Bench on this particular issue is that they have not carried the thing to its logical con-
clusion, and brought back the 40 or 50 men who carried their conscientious objection to the point of going to prison rather than going to war. What the Government have done is admirable, but it is marred by failure to include those who, as conscientious objectors, seem to me to have adopted the most logical position. I agree with what the Mover of the Amendment said about certain other aspects which come up on this case, but in common fairness to our own Front Bench I must say that most of the things that the hon. Member complained about were within the control of his own Government.

Major COLVILLE: I stated that they had now been thrown up into very sharp relief by this selective action.

Mr. BROWN: If they were not in sharp relief before, something must have gone wrong, because from outside this House, for years past, I have been hammering away at some of the grievances which the hon. and gallant Member mentioned.

Major COLVILLE: Hammer away now.

Mr. BROWN: Then we will have a Council of State on the back benches. If the hon. Member will persuade his Front Bench to put on the white sheet of repentance for what they did not do during their time, I will endeavour to improve the conduct of my own Front Bench, and with that happy combination we may achieve our desired object. I hope the Financial Secretary will put right the position of the men who enlisted without permission. We had a large number of men who joined up. These men were keen on joining, but they could not get permission and, finally, they put their duty to the State in front of their duty as civil servants, and enlisted. It is true that the State have allowed these men to come back, but their reinstatement is only allowed to date from January, 1918. [An. HON. MEMBER: "Under what Government?"] I suppose that would be the first Council of State, the Coalition Government. The penalty still remains. It would not cost the Government very much to put this matter right, and I am certain that this concession would be approved by all sections of the House. I ask that these men should be reinstated as from the date when they joined up, and not from the 1st January, 1918.
There is another category for whom I would like some sympathy. There were a number of men who, when the War broke out, had passed the Civil Service examination for entry and had also passed the medical examination for entry. If a man signed on in a Government Department and was released next day for military service, the whole of his period of absence counted for Civil Service purposes, but the man who went to the recruiting office the day before he went to the State Department forfeited the whole whole of his period of military service for Civil Service purposes. So far as I know, there is only a tiny handful of men affected, and I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to allow these men to count their full service for pension and increment purposes. I hope that the Government will not budge in the slightest degree from the position already taken with regard to the conscientious objector, and that they will extend the concession to the 40 or 50 absolutists who at present are not covered. At the same time, I hope the Government will go a little out of their way to meet the grievances of the small categories of men who deserve the best that we can give them, particularly as it would cost the State very little to remedy their grievance. I hope the Motion will be rejected and that we shall concentrate on doing justice where justice has not so far been done.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment in an admirable speech did, no doubt unintentionally, throw a red herring across the trail by speaking of other grievances. That was a matter which would command almost universal support, but it cannot affect the justice of the action which the Government have taken to say that there are other grievances, perhaps greater grievances, that have not been remedied. The particular action taken by the Government must be judged upon its merits. I am speaking as an ex-service man who was in France, in the front line trenches, in 1914, and did not come back with a whole skin. When I take my mind back to that time, my memories are very vivid, I remember that we had a feeling of irritation against the conscientious objectors. When one is in a nasty hole there is a kind of instinctive desire to get as many
people as possible into it. That feeling, however, was not confined to conscientious objectors; it extended to those who were fortunate enough to find themselves indispensable in some way or other at home, and it also extended to people who were wearing red tabs and brass hats at the base, who, although they were in the Forces, were not undergoing the same dangers that we were undergoing.
How long shall this kind of thing go on? Is there to be no amnesty of any kind? Is there to be no relief from those angry feelings which war inevitably stirs up? Are we deliberately going to try to keep these feelings alive? I believe that the people as a whole, including the ex-service men, would like to have these feelings forgotten. We have been able, in the course of time, very largely to keep down the feelings of hatred that existed between us and our enemies, even towards the commanders of submarines of the German Navy, against whom the nation felt a peculiar grievance. I do not say that those feelings do not exist to a certain extent, but time, the healer, has been softening these feelings What are we to do with our own people? It seems to me that there can be no right principle in favour of opposing the Government's action in this matter. It has been admitted by the Mover of the Amendment that the thing is on so small a scale that, as he frankly and generously admitted, it is not gravely prejudicing the chances of ex-service men. I am glad that he said that, because it clears the ground and shows that what is trying to be done by moving this Amendment is not so much to benefit the ex-service men but to continue the punishment of those who have already been punished for a considerable period by doing what they, rightly or wrongly, believed to be the right thing. Whatever our feelings may have been at the time, I do most genuinely believe that it is to-day the feeling of ex-service men that we should do our best to do away with all necessary lines of division in this country, and things that set one man against another, and to forget the things that arose during an emergency which has passed and which we hope will never come upon us again.

Major LEIGHTON: I rise heartily to support the Motion moved by my hon. and gallant Friend. I cannot quite understand the attitude of mind of the
conscientious objector. I can understand a man disliking war and I can understand men doing all that they can to prevent war, but I cannot understand men who, when the country is in danger, refuse to lift one finger to help it. From that point of view, I think that the conscientious objector in the Civil Service has already been dealt with perfectly generously. It was on the 10th February, 1917, that a Circular was issued in which it was laid down clearly what would be the position of the conscientious objector. He was re-admitted to the service, but he was not to count the time that he had been absent from the service for pension and increment. That was all the sacrifice that he made, whereas his friend, or the man who sat next to him in the office, went out and risked everything. Are they to be on a par with him? Why go back now and give him back his service? It is a very small sacrifice that he had to make.
A Committee of Inquiry went very carefully into the matter, and I do not agree with the hon. Member opposite who said that that Committee was not fit to judge, because it sat too soon after the War, and, therefore, the members of the Committee cherished feelings which should not have been brought into an inquiry of this sort. I see a member of the Committee present, and I hope that he will be able to tell us whether he had any feelings of animosity. The Committee of inquiry was unanimous. The Lord Privy Seal and the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) signed it. I am sorry the Lord Privy Seal is not present this afternoon, and I can quite understand that he has a great deal of other business to do. He has a great many things to contradict in these days, and I do not know how he views that Report to-day.
I am sorry also that the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is not present. He is a man of independent judgment, but I think he would go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment. The history of this case has been put before the House very ably by my two hon. Friends, and there is not very much left for me to say. The Socialist party went to the country before the election and promised the ex-service men that they would do away with the seven years limit; and I suppose they got
a certain number of votes. They have not done so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, they have!"] They have done exactly the same as the last Government. I am not complaining of the action of the Minister of Pensions, who I have always found of the greatest help in any cases that I have sent to him. I am perfectly sure that, like his predecessor, he is doing all he can for the ex-service men. But will the Socialist party go to the country now and say, "We have recognised the conscientious objectors and are going to put them on a par with ex-service men"? I do not think the ex-service men would quite appreciate that attitude. They may. At any rate, I hope the ex-service men will watch with great care how hon. Members vote in the Division when it takes place.

Mr. BENSON: The hon. Member who has just spoken said that he was quite unable to understand the mind of the conscientious objector, and previous speakers on the other side of the House, although they may not have said so, proved conclusively by their speeches that they did not understand the mind of the conscientious objector either. I speak as one who was a conscientious objector during the War, and I only hope that hon. Members opposite are as proud of their War record as I am of mine. When hon. Members opposite suggest that there is anything to be ashamed in being a conscientious objector and that they stand upon a lower level than the ex-Service men—[Interruption.]—Let me say that I repudiate any such suggestion; and I believe I am speaking for the whole of the party on this side of the House. [Interruption.] I am not afraid of any hon. Member opposite who would try to take Chesterfield from me. I reckon that being a conscientious objector gave me 5,000 extra votes.

Major COLFOX: What a compliment to your constituency!

Mr. BENSON: It is. The treatment of the conscientious objectors during the War was one of the most sorry and despicable episodes of the War. Naturally, when feeling runs high and people are up against something that they cannot understand, like the mind of the conscientious objector, they hate it and you get all kinds of petty tyrannies and petty vindictiveness, but it is rather a
shock to find that that tyranny and vindictiveness was not limited to the man in the street but actually had its repercussions in Government service. It is more astonishing still to find that there are people 10 and 15 years after the War who are still capable of waging this mean and despicable vendetta. The seconder of the Motion gave the whole case away. He protested not merely against the advancement of conscientious objectors in Government service but against their War years ranking for pension. Clearly, it is the antipathy of hon. Members opposite to conscientious objectors not a love for the ex-Service men which animates them. These men who were penalised committed no crime. They were definitely allowed by Act of Parliament to judge this matter for themselves. They were merely following a line of conduct which was specifically laid down by Act of Parliament permitting them to do so, and I fail to understand why an action which is permitted specifically by Act of Parliament should be regarded as something for which a man should be penalised.
Moreover, every one of the conscientious objectors we are discussing at the moment was adjudged genuine by a tribunal of one kind or another. Hon. Members opposite may not be able to understand the mind of the conscientious objector but that does not alter the fact that they took a legal line, and were adjudged genuine as well. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Motion said that the conscientious objectors refused service. That is not true. The conscientious objectors gave service. They were engaged upon work of national importance, and I want to deny as vehemently as I can the idea that the killing of men is the highest form of service you can give to the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or be killed."] That was not the object of the service, that was an accident of it. The question of the conscientious objector, and the question whether it is fair or not to the ex-Service men, is really a very minor matter. The Government in my opinion, and I think we shall find in the opinion of the House, is merely righting a long standing wrong.
There is something more. The Government is getting back to the fundamental
basis of Government policy in this country; they are getting back to the basis of a permanent non-political civil service as against a civil service which is dependent upon political favour. In other words, the Government are getting back from the "spoils" system which the party opposite tried to introduce. If you are going to start differentiating against particular kinds of opinion you dislike—and here let me say that it was opinion that was differentiated against because the action of these men was perfectly legal and the only thing that could be held against them was their opinion—it will not be long before you start making appointments of opinions you do like. [Interruption.] There is no suggestion in the Debate to-day, no evidence, that the Government have advanced these men because they were conscientious objectors. If there is any evidence let hon. Members opposite produce it and not mumble inaudibly. This attempt to differentiate against the conscientious objector is nothing more or less than an attempt to introduce the "spoils" system, which, where it does come in, rots the Civil Service. The Government and this House should take very firmly and strongly the line that we must protect the efficiency and the integrity of the Civil Service against political meddling and political corruption.

Commander SOUTHBY: As a member of the senior fighting service I feel it my duty to intervene in this Debate and offer a few observations on the matter now under discussion. We are now some 12 years away from the War and it is possible to view with a calmer and more judicial mind the events which took place during the War and the disabilities which have arisen out of the War. Personally I often considered during the War that where there was real sincerity it must have taken perhaps as much if not more pluck to be a conscientious objector, than to go to the front line trenches in Flanders or to the North Sea.

Mr. BENSON: You try it and find out.

Commander SOUTHBY: I said that where there was real sincerity and I still hold to that opinion. As a man makes his bed so he must lie upon it, and if a man chose in the exercise of his rights to become a conscientious objector he did so with his eyes open. When hon. Mem-
bers opposite say that there is a question of penalising a man when he was in the exercise of his strict rights given to him by the Government of the day I would say that the right given him by the Government was that he might exercise his conscientious scruples in not going to the War, but if he did so he did so under certain definite understandings, and it is those definite understandings which the Government is now seeking to abrogate. There is no question that the conscientious objector knew perfectly well what he was doing when he exercised this undoubted and in many cases sincere right to be a conscientious objector.
The conscientious objectors, as my hon. Friend said, fall roughly into two categories. There were those who conscientiously and on religious grounds felt that they could not undertake combatant service during the War. I pay my tribute, as every Member of this House, and certainly all ex-service men would, to the gallant work done by those who went to France, not on combatant service but on non-combatant service. I instance the Quakers' Ambulance—men who performed deeds of heroism that were only equalled and perhaps not surpassed by those who served in the firing line. But it is not those men with whom we have to deal now. They had conscientious scruples against undertaking combatant service, but they did their best for their country according to their lights. There were those also who undertook work of national importance. But we are dealing with men who did not undertake any non-combatant service. The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) mentioned 50 men who were definitely discharged from the Service. The House should remember that those were men who had been turned down by their own tribunals and by the central tribunal as not being genuine conscientious objectors. Therefore, it would not be fair either to the conscientious objectors or to the ex-service men to reinstate those people in the Civil Service.

Mr. BROCKWAY: The 40 men to whom my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) referred were found to be genuine conscientious objectors by their tribunal, but they took the view, which I took, that if one refuses service at the Front where
there is danger, one should also refuse service at home where there is no danger, and they went to prison because they refused all service.

Commander SOUTHBY: Of course I accept the hon. Member's explanation without offering any comment on his views. But although hon. Members may wish to right the disabilities of certain classes of men, they have no right to right those disabilities to the disadvantage of other men who did join up, knowing full well what their disabilities would be—disabilities which, alas, remain to them in many cases to this day, disabilities which no circular letter issued by the Government can ever put right. Those men, who never shirked their disabilities and never asked for any special consideration because of their disabilities, have a right, in contradistinction to those who undertook, perfectly well knowing what they were doing, to become conscientious objectors, and who now seek to have it both ways and to alter the bargain made with them.
I do not want to detain the House by going over all the ground which was so ably covered by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, but there are one or two points that the House would do well to note. The Circular of 18th August, 1920, made a settlement of the conditions of the conscientious objectors who were restored to the Civil Service under certain disabilities. Nobody will deny that that was a fair and just settlement. But it was made quite distinctly on the condition that when they were restored to certain rights and privileges they would be subject to the implicit pledge given in this House that "Conscientious objectors who are employed in the civil Service and who have refused to serve in the Army shall not be promoted over the heads of civil servants who have served or are serving in the Army." That is a perfectly clear-cut and just settlement of the case.
The report of 1922 was unanimous; it was signed by all the members without any dissension. I was very glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) in the House just now. I hope that he will intervene and tell us what are his views on the subject as he sees it to-day, because the whole House pays tribute to him for his fearlessness of expression and the integrity of his
views, and we shall be interested to hear whether he still feels as he did when be signed that report. The report made a perfectly fair settlement. If there are people who take the view that the conscientious objectors have suffered sufficiently for their opinions, surely they must admit that the provisions of the Circular referred to amply remove their disability. The War is now so far away that there may be those who will say, "Let us be generous to these men; they have been sufficiently punished." I say that the ex-service men would be the very first to say, "Oh, it is a long time ago. Let them be reinstated." At the same time I am convinced that justice would demand, and ex-service men would demand, that these men, although reinstated, should not go back to positions better than those of ex-service men who served during the War.
You may right the disabilities of the conscientious objector, but you cannot right the wounds of the ex-service man who made his choice in 1914 and the ensuing years. At present, under this Circular, the conscientious objector is back in the Civil Service practically as if the War had never been. He has one small disability as compared with the ex-service man, but it is a very small disability. He is put in the same position as the established man in the Civil Service who did do his job and served in the King's Forces. Why should he be particularly favoured? What of the 15,000 ex-service men who were in the temporary class and have now been taken on the permanent establishment? They are not allowed to count their period of temporary service for pension, yet the conscientious objector is allow to count his period of suspension for pension. Where is the justice of that? However much you may wish to do the fair and kindly thing to the conscientious objector, where is the justice in this differentiating between him and the ex-service man?
The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton quoted an extract from the report in which it was stated that the witnesses for the Civil Service expressed the opinion that the Civil Service conscientious objector had already been sufficiently penalised and that no further action in regard to him should be taken. That is perfectly true. But than no fur-
ther action in regard to the conscientious objector has ever been taken or is contemplated to his detriment. All that we are pleading for is that while you are fair to the conscientious objector you have no right to be unfair to the ex-service man. I could not help thinking that the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) can hardly have intended what I understood him to say, namely, that dying for one's country was no form of service. I feel sure that he did not mean that.

Mr. BENSON: I did not say it.

Commander SOUTHBY: I am sure the hon. Member did not mean it.

Mr. BENSON: What I said was that dying for one's country was not the purpose for which a man was sent into the Army. He was sent there for the purpose of killing someone else.

Commander SOUTHBY: It does seem a curious way of looking at the matter. Those who went into the Army or the Navy went into it for the purpose of fighting for their country, with the certainty that a large proportion of them would die. The greatest and most glorious service that these men did for their country was to die for it. I resent the suggestion as do their relatives and the country will resent the suggestion too, that men who laid down their lives for their country were not doing a service for their country.

Mr. BENSON: I did not say that.

Commander SOUTHBY: What the hon. Member said was that dying was an accident. I call it a deed of heroism.

Mr. BENSON: I said that I was not prepared to admit that killing another man was the highest form of service to one's country.

Commander SOUTHBY: The hon. Member went further and said that dying was not a form of service to the country. I am within the recollection of the House.

Mr. BENSON: What I said was what I have already stated. When I made the remark someone interjected a remark about dying. I pointed out that men were not sent into the Army for the definite purpose of dying, but to kill. That is what I said.

Commander SOUTHBY: Then I am glad that the hon. Member agrees with me that the highest form of service that a man can do is to die for his country.

Mr. BENSON: I am not prepared to admit that either.

Commander SOUTHBY: Then out of his own mouth the hon. Member is judged. I believe that hon. Members, whatever their views on pacifism and militarism, service or non-service, are actuated by a desire to see justice done and a bargain honoured—are anxious to see the bond of a, Government, whether Conservative, Liberal or Socialist, duly honoured. We may want to do a kindness to men with whom we did not agree and with whom we may not agree now, but when you have an honest open bond you should honour it, without trying to alter it, whether it is seven or 70 years since the bond was made. An hon. Member on the Liberal benches said that, of course, differences of opinion had been composed, that time and circumstances altered opinions and healed breaches. We know that to be a fact; we know that time and circumstances heal breaches such as have existed and may still exist between the Liberal party and the Socialist party. But that does not mean that we should alter a written or spoken guarantee given to men whose only crime presumably, in the opinion of some hon. Members opposite, was that they served their country when their country needed them. There is no ex-service man in the country to-day and no man serving in His Majesty's Forces to-day who will not consider that the action of the Government in restoring the status of these conscientious objectors above the heads of ex-service men is a monstrous injustice, a betrayal of men to whom a pledge was given, and an insult to the memory of every man and woman who gave their lives to defend their country in the Great War.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: As my name has been mentioned, I feel that I must say something on this subject. I would have liked to have heard what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has to say, because I am a little in the dark in discussing this question. In the first place I do not know the merits of the question. I understand that there was published some time ago the report of a
Select Committee of which I find that I was a member, although I have a very hazy recollection of it. It is nearly 10 years ago and I have nearly forgotten about it. It is now alleged that the recommendation of that Committee, which the Government of the day presumably adopted, has not been followed. If it has not been followed I should like to know the circumstances in which the Government have decided not to follow it. As I do not know what those circumstances are it is very difficult for me to express an opinion on the subject. But I would like to correct some misapprehensions that were obvious in the speeches of supporters of this Motion with regard to that Committee's report. First of all we have been told that it was an unanimous report. It was nothing of the sort. On the contrary there was the greatest difference of opinion on the matter, and the report which was eventually presented to the House was no more a unanimous report than a Bill which is—

Major COLVILLE: I have the report here. It is a unanimous report signed by the hon. and gallant Member himself.

Major WOOD: My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension. I have the report here too. He has openly stated that this was a unanimous report and that my signature is attached to it. Would he tell me on what page he finds my signature attached to it?

Commander SOUTHBY: There is the heading of the report on page 3. It is there mentioned that "a Select Committee has been appointed to inquire" etc., etc. The names of the Committee are on the opposite page, and there is the statement, "They have agreed to the following report." Presumably, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not agree he would have sent in a minority report or would have indicated his dissent from the majority report.

Major WOOD: It does not mean that I am committed to every word in the report.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me to ask him a question? It is well understood in this House that when the report of a Committee is presented bearing the names of certain members, but not containing any
minority report, the report is regarded as a unanimous report. If there is anything in that report to show that it was not unanimous, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman kindly refer me to the page, as I am going to speak later in the Debate?

Major WOOD: Certainly. I proposed to do so, if the Noble Lord had waited. There are many ways in which a Committee may make a Minority Report. It may give, as our Committee did, an account of its proceedings in which, like a Report of a Committee of this House, giving the division on every question of difference. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at page vii, he will see that it gives the proceedings of the Committee for every day, and on Thursday, 6th April, 1922, the Committee proceeded to consider their draft Report, which was brought up and was gone through by the Committee Clause by Clause, and Amendments were moved to it in exactly the same way as Amendments are moved to a Bill in this House. There were many divisions taken. I see that the first division was upon a paragraph saying that on the outbreak of War every citizen should be at the disposal of the country, which I, and most Members, will think quite correct. I find that an Amendment was moved to add the words, "and property," and I am very interested to find that the Lord Privy Seal and myself were the only two who voted in favour of that Amendment. Eight divisions were taken on the first day, and on the last day upon which the Report was finally approved there were two divisions; unfortunately, I appear to have been absent. Therefore, I think that in view of what I have said, I have shown that it cannot be said that this was a unanimous Report, and it cannot be said that I am responsible for every word in it.

Commander SOUTHBY: On page xiv it says:
Question, 'That this Report, as amended, be the Report of the Committee to the House,' put, and agreed to.
It was ordered to be reported together with the Minutes of Evidence, but what we on this side of the House suggest is that when the Report was discussed the hon. Member may have put forward
Amendments, but that the final amended Report was the Report of the Committee from which the hon. Gentleman did not dissent, and therefore he must be taken as having subscribed to it.

Major WOOD: I said at the beginning of my speech that there are two methods in which a committee can approach a matter of this kind and decide to give a Report, and that a minority can say they cannot accept it and make a Minority Report. We decided to vote on each paragraph as it came up, and this would be published, so that our views would be perfectly clear. We would make our protest if we disagreed with any part of the Report, and there was nothing more to be done. It is quite clear what the position was. The Report was not a unanimous Report. As I said before, it was no more unanimous than a Bill which goes through this House and has passed its Third Reading is in every paragraph and every Clause the view of every Member of the House.
Another point I would make upon this Report is that we did not decide this question so much upon its merits. When evidence was given before us we found that the whole question was prejudged, because the Treasury had already given a pledge in the most explicit terms, and it was quite impossible, in my opinion, and, apparently, in the opinion of the other members of the Committee, to get past it. It may be that we did not like it, but, whether that was so or not, it was there, and, when a pledge has been given, you have to make up your mind whether it is best to break it if you think it is bad, or to keep it if you think you will do more harm by breaking it.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me to draw his attention to the paragraph on page XIV, to which my hon. and gallant Friend has already referred:
Question, 'That the Report, as amended, be the Report of the Committee to the House,' put, and agreed to.
Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether he assented to the Committee's Report?

Major WOOD: I have already dealt with that. I have said that it is nearly 10 years since the Committee took evidence, and I cannot remember every detail, but I have a recollection that we
considered what we ought to do. It was quite obvious that the Committee was not unanimous in its opinions on this question, and we had to decide whether we would have a Majority Report and a Minority Report, and we came to the conclusion that the minority would be sufficiently safeguarded by adding a report of the proceedings which showed the division of opinion on this particular question. May I point out this further? I have said that we considered we were bound by this pledge which was given, but it was not an absolute pledge, because the letter of 1920 to the Departments, which has been referred to before, contained this addendum:
Departments are reminded of this pledge, which was intimated to them by Treasury Circular of 20th July, 1918, but for this purpose a senior officer who is definitely regarded as unfit for promotion need not be a bar to the promotion of a conscientious objector.
There was no variation of that definite pledge given, and, as far as I know, that limitation in itself would be sufficient to cover all the cases which are the foundation of this Amendment to-day.
I have only this to say on the merits of the question. It is undoubtedly a very hard thing that civil servants should go to the War, say, for five years, and come back and find that men who have not gone there are in a better position from the mere fact that they have not gone to the front. A balance had to be struck in this matter, and I think that the decision which was taken shortly after the War was in all the circumstances perfectly fair, and it was right that some steps should be taken to try to safeguard the position of civil servants who had gone to the War. If you laid down a rule of that kind which has been followed, as far as I can gather, for about 10 years, I think we are entitled to argue now that no civil servant who went to the War can honestly claim that he is not having his interests safeguarded, or that he is under a disability now. He has had 10 years during which the Government have said that no conscientious objector would be promoted over his head, and I am certain that he has been well treated as far as that matter is concerned.
I am rather sorry that my hon. Friend opposite adopted the tone that he did. I do not think that, as a matter of fact,
he altogether assisted his own case. I have a great deal of sympathy with conscientious objectors, and I have a great deal of admiration for them. I believe it required, in many cases at any rate, an extraordinary amount of moral courage to be a conscientious objector during the War, and, for my part, I think we ought to see that people who had that strong moral courage to do what they did ought not to be penalised further. But when the hon. Gentleman says that men were sent into the Army in order to kill, I think he is misrepresenting the whole case, and doing harm to it. I went into the Army very early, but I did not consider that I went into the Army to kill. Indeed, I think one might very well argue that those of us who went into the Army early did so in order to prevent killing, and the earlier we went probably the better, and the less killing there would have been. I must say that it was rather to defend people than to kill others. During the whole time I was in the Army, or during the whole of the War, I can honestly say that I never had the slightest degree of animosity against anyone, even against those who were opposed to us in the War.
6.0 P.M.
In the early stages of the War, at Christmas, 1914, I was in the front trenches, and took part in what was well known at the time as a truce. We went over in front of the trenches, and shook hands with many of our German enemies. A great number of people think we did something that was degrading. I will not discuss that at the moment. The fact is that we did it, and I then came to the conclusion that I have held very firmly ever since, that if we had been left to ourselves there would never have been another shot fired. For a fortnight that truce went on. We were on the most friendly terms, and it was only the fact that we were being controlled by others that made it necessary for us to start trying to shoot one another again. It was the fact that we were all in the grip of a political system which was bad, and I and others who were there at the time determined there and then never to rest as far as we could until we had seen whether we could change it. I hope that we shall do something to change it, but I believe, at the same time, that if we are going to change it we must get rid of the feeling, which, it seems to me, animates the Amendment we are discuss-
ing to-night. We have to forget about the War as far as we can, or forget, at any rate, about this aspect of it. I think that conscientious objectors, if they are deserving of any penalties at all, have been sufficiently penalised, and I hope that in future we shall hear as little as possible of this subject.

Mr. LANG: As this Debate has proceeded, I have wondered whether we are living in the days of the Naval Conference and of flourishing branches of the League of Nations Union—in a time of propaganda for peace and of belief in peace—or whether, in this Chamber at any rate, we are back again into the bitterness, the misunderstandings and the mistakes of the War period. I believe we are all grateful to the Mover and the Seconder of this Motion for the great moderation with which they have put a case, on which, doubtless, they feel very strongly. One of the difficulties of this question is that it is to such an extent possible for people on opposite sides to take such very definite views upon it. I am one of those who were not called upon to exercise a decision in the matter at all. It always seemed to me to be very peculiar that a Government which was opposed to those who had conscientious objections in this matter, and hon. Members who shared that view, should, for some reason or other, wisely or unwisely, have decided that ministers of religion should be totally excepted from the provisions of the Military Service Act. It was not merely a question of exemption. If they had been exempted, as I think they might have been, it would have been open to ministers who believed in war—and there were many of them, men who were busy recruiting at home—to have gone into the Army, and those who objected would have been able to suffer for their principles and to have given the example, which, I feel sure, ministers holding anti-war views would have been willing to give.
Rightly or wrongly, however, they were entirely excepted under the provisions of that Act, so that a very large body of people who might be expected to hold conscientious views on this subject were never called upon for any expression of those views or for any statement of where they stood. The people who felt that war
was wrong, and who refused to go to war, are people for whom I am bound to have the profoundest respect. As I understand the Christian religion, I believe that they were carrying out the principles of the founder of the Christian religion, and, although it is easy to speak now, very far away from the event, I believe that if I had had to make a decision, my decision must have been that of the men who said that in no circumstances could they do anything which would involve the taking of human life. Nor would I have taken the place of other people at home in order that those people might go forward to prosecute the War. I hope that, whatever judgment hon. Members may come to, at the end of this Debate, they will not imagine that those men who went the whole way, who were called absolutists, are men to be despised. They refused to take part in the prosecution of war at the front, and they also refused to take any of the other jobs at home; and, though hon. Members opposite may think those men were misguided, they had the courage to suffer for their principles.
What is the principle which is involved in the Amendment? A quotation has been made from a paper which I have never seen, but which the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) rather scathingly criticised, to the effect that the action of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was a betrayal in principle of men who had given their all. The question is, for what did these men give their all? I have no doubt on that matter at all. I have the pro- foundest respect for those brave men—there can be nothing but admiration for them—who gave their all, and who went into the Army, many of them strongly objecting to war. I think that the position of the conscientious objector in khaki was incomparably the most painful position in the War. There were men who hated war, who would have preferred anything to the necessity of making war, and who were compelled by a sense of duty to go into a business against which their whole beings revolted. That was courage; that was sacrifice. It was magnificent, and nobody would begrudge a tribute of admiration to the very great men who did it. But why did they do it? What was the most successful appeal made to the hundreds of thousands of decent men who joined the Army? It was, "This is a War
to end war." That was the reason why tens of thousands who were never militarists went into the Army. They went to prosecute a War which they believed was going to end war, and the betrayal of that principle is not in the action of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; it is in the raising of these animosities and in the reassertion, all these years after the War, of the militarist view. As I say, I was not called upon to make a decision myself, so that the reference which I am about to make will not be taken as being inspired by any personal desire for defence. I am indebted to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) for having drawn my attention to a Debate in the House of Lords on 6th July, 1914, on the Government of Ireland (Amendment) Bill, when the late Lord Roberts, a very famous soldier, used these words:
If you penetrate deep enough into the depths of human nature you will unfailingly reach in each one of us a stratum which is impervious to discipline or any other influence from without. The strongest manifestation of this truth lies in what men call conscience—an innate sense of right and wrong which neither reason, nor man-made laws can affect.
In another part of the same speech, Lord Roberts said:
It was apparently in contemplation to make a demand on our soldiers at which the consciences of many revolted. It is useless at such a juncture to invoke the authority of the Constitution, to raise fine points of law, or to threaten pains and penalties. Such things matter not one jot when men's consciences are aroused. I tell your Lordships again now, as I told you in February last that, if this demand be renewed, the Army will be brought to destruction.
That was a very remarkable speech, and I think hon. Members opposite should be enabled by it to realise that the question of conscience is not a matter considered merely by a few theologians or people with very advanced views on most things. If hon. Members opposite believe that the ex-service men in this country are behind them in this matter I beg to assure them that they are entirely wrong. If anybody is sick of war, and of persecution arising out of war; if anybody is sick of the hideous pretence that by pouring contempt on a few people who hold extreme views, ex-service men are being defended or benefited, it is the ex-service men themselves—as hon. Members opposite will discover.

Major COLVILLE: Then why did not the Government consult the country and the ex-service men of the country?

Mr. LANG: The hon. and gallant Member is entitled to ask that question, but of course the person who must answer it is the representative of the Government, and I have no doubt he will do so.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I am afraid that we are getting rather wide of the mark in this Debate. The Mover of the Motion kept very closely to its terms and did not go into the question of why the War took place. He kept to the one point that an agreement was entered into, and that the Government, in September, 1929, during a Parliamentary Recess, abrogated that agreement. Many hon. Members, including I think a number of hon. Members opposite have been rather surprised to hear exactly what transpired. I happened to have been a Member of the House in 1914, when the question arose with regard to men serving in the Army. It came to a point where large numbers were required and, if men could not be obtained voluntarily, it became necessary for the maintenance of the country's prestige that we should conscript. The Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Asquith as he then was, announced that he would make one exception and that was with regard to conscientious objectors. He said that men who could prove that they had conscientious objections to serving in the War would be excluded from actual service. As far as I am concerned I felt quite disappointed at that decision, but I felt that if an agreement was made it ought to be carried out. That agreement was carried out, on those lines, in the early days of the War and regulations were made dealing with those men in the Civil Service who were not prepared to undertake what I venture to think is the first obligation of every citizen. They were called upon to suffer certain disabilities. They cannot have it both ways. In the early days of the War they said they were not prepared to take up arms and fight for their country.
Having arrived at that decision they could not very well expect any Government to relieve them of the disabilities laid upon them in consequence, and I am rather surprised to learn this afternoon that because it is now ten or twelve years
since the War arrangements are to be made now to wipe out, as it were, all the disabilities that were placed on these men and to say to them in effect, "We are sorry we ever made that arrangement about conscientious objectors and, although you did not carry out your obligations to the country, we will now put you in the same position as, and in some cases in a more advantageous position than, those who went to the War." I am not here to argue as to what is the opinion of the ex-service man qua ex-service man, in regard to these conscientious objectors. I represent constituents who know well my opinion on this matter. I have been closely allied with ex-service men, and I have never, during the whole of my experience, heard any ex-service man say that the time had arrived when conscientious objectors who entered the Civil Service should be put back in the same position as they would have been in, if they had carried out the duties which devolved upon them at the time of the War. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lang), who spoke last, said that some of the conscientious objectors did not go to the War because they were of the opinion that it was a war to end war.

Mr. LANG: No; what I said was that the great majority of the men who went into the Army went into the War because they believed it was a war to end war.

Sir F. HALL: Then surely, in those circumstances, the first duty of every conscientious objector, if he was honestly desirous of having a war to end war, should be to carry that out to its logical conclusion and say, "It is my duty to take my part in carrying out what I am desirous of seeing, namely, a war to end war." It was not anything of the sort. There was, unfortunately, a certain number who, for various reasons, did not join up, just as there was a certain number who found jobs that made them indispensable in this country; there was a certain number who were able to stretch their imaginations and their consciences to such an extent—I do not say all, but some—that they could say, "On conscientious lines, I object." I always had one opinion with regard to those people, and the opinion I held in 1914 was the same as I hold now.
While the Government are prepared, under this arrangement of September, 1929, to place some of these men in a better position that they were, and give them back pension rights, how about the men who, very often quietly and in a surreptitious manner, have served 10 or 12 years in the various Government branches? Where are they? They should receive fair consideration, and in no case should any of them ever be discharged for new entrants. if the Government are looking after the conscientious objectors, they should look after the ex-service men who went to the War, and came back, and have been carrying out their positions in the Civil Service. The time is past when any of those men should be discharged, and I want to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury giving them careful consideration, and saying, "If we have come to a certain decision in regard to those who did not do their jobs, in any case we are going to see that fair rations are given to those who, after serving in the War, have been able to carry out their work in the Civil Service, and we are not going to see young fellows of 18 or 19 years of age taking jobs away from these men."
I hold no brief for the conscientious objectors. I am perfectly honest about the whole matter. I never have believed in them, and I do not now. Whatever one's convictions are, I think one should be prepared to stand up for them and say so, and I say exactly what are my principles with regard to these men. I am rather amused at my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Banff (Major Wood), whom I have known for many years, putting a conundrum to me today, which I find it difficult to answer. The conundrum was, "When is a unanimous report not a unanimous report?" The hon. and gallant Member said that as regards the report, he forgot it, and it occurred 10 years ago. I can understand that, and I venture to say to him that, as he knows from his experience in this House, there are certain regular lines laid down. A report comes from a Committee, and if you do not agree, it is quite easy for you to put a very short addendum, saying "I do not agree." I cannot help thinking that the hon. and gallant Member did not help his case at all by saying that the report which he had signed—

Major WOOD: I never signed that report, and no Member here ever signed it. When we started to discuss our report, there was a Motion made that the report proposed by the Chairman be read a Second time, paragraph by paragraph, and that was agreed to. It was gone through paragraph by paragraph, and there was no signing of the report.

Sir F. HALL: I must accept the explanation of the hon. and gallant Member, but I will give him a little friendly advice, and that is that it is a well-known fact, in regard to reports of committees, that they are carefully gone through, line by line, in order that the committees may decide. I have always understood, but apparently I have been wrong, that a report, having been issued, and no dissent having been raised by any hon. Member, even though it has not been actually signed, is regarded as the report of the whole of the particular committee. I shall begin to wonder, when I see a report presented in future, whether, if there is no dissentient, it is a unanimous report or the report of a minority. I shall be interested to look at the division lists to-night to see exactly how my hon. and gallant Friend records his vote.

Major WOOD: I am against the Amendment.

Sir F. HALL: We know then that he does not agree with his own report. I shall also look with interest to see how the Lord Privy Seal votes, but however he and others may vote, I shall certainly support my hon. and gallant Friend, because I have no use for a conscientious objector. I believe that the first duty of every man is the protection of his country. I hope that we may be able to carry on the duty of protection in a voluntary manner, but I say that if the time comes again when that is not possible, I hope we shall not have any question again with regard to giving advantages to conscientious objectors over those who take up arms for their country.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I certainly have no wish to complain either of the introduction of this Motion or of the manner in which the hon. and gallant Member for North Midlothian (Major
Colville) made his introductory speech. I am only sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir G. Bowyer) is not able to be here, for reasons that we all deplore, because we all know the very deep interest which he takes in this question. I would like to say further to the hon. and gallant Member for North Midlothian that I realise the deep feeling which he has in the matter and that I shall not mistake his moderation for indifference. One of the features of the House of Commons is that we can discuss, on the Floor of the House, matters about which we feel passionately, and yet attribute sincerity to our opponents. Though this is a matter upon which I myself have very deep convictions, I trust that I shall not offend the susceptibilities of anyone sitting on the opposite side of the House.
First of all, with regard to the facts, as far as I understood the hon. and gallant Member for North Midlothian, he stated them quite correctly, but perhaps, as one or two hon. Members since have expressed some doubt upon the facts, I may recapitulate them. Broadly speaking, there were five different sets of people in the Civil Service. There were, first of all, those who were not at any time requisitioned to fight in the War. Those men, because their work was required in the Departments to which they belonged, never came under review at all, and they do not enter in any way into the discussion to-day. In the second place, there were those who took part, either as combatants or as non-combatants, either because they were conscripted or because they joined voluntarily, with the permission of their Departments. In the third place, there were those members of the Civil Service who, in their excess of zeal, joined the Colours without permission. Then there were those conscientious objectors who were acting in accordance with the law; and, finally, there were those conscientious objectors who in various ways came in conflict with the law. Broadly speaking, those were the five groups.
With regard to those who were conscripted or who joined voluntarily, with permission, they obtained, throughout, the excess of their Civil Service pay over their military pay, they obtained the same increments of salary which they would have obtained had they remained
at home, they were given equivalent promotion, and when the War was over they were restored precisely to the position that they would have had, had they continued in their Department and not served in the War. With regard to those who joined without permission, at first the view was taken that they lost their Civil Service position, but, as the hon. and gallant Member quite correctly stated, it was subsequently arranged that they should be reinstated in full, so far as the time after the 1st January, 1918, was concerned, in all the increments of pay that they would have had, had they remained in their Department, and with the promotion to which they would have been entitled. Therefore, their position to-day is that they are in precisely the same position in all respects with regard to the future as the men who joined up with permission, or the conscripted men. What they actually lost was the excess of the Civil Service pay over the military pay during the period between their joining up and 1st January, 1918.
With regard to the conscientious objectors who acted in accordance with the law, and lost their position in the Civil Service during the War, they were subsequently taken back into the Civil Service, and from the day they were taken back they were given the same position that they had when they left; that is to say, they did not count for their service the period when they were on work of national importance, and they did not obtain increments or promotion for that period. They were further limited by the rule that they could not be promoted over the heads of any ex-Service men who had served during the War. It is with regard to these men that the Government have taken the action to which reference is being made. These men have been restored to the increments and promotion which they would have obtained had the period during which they were conscientious objectors been counted as part of their service in the Civil Service. So far as the future is concerned, therefore, they are also to be put into exactly the same position as if they had remained the whole time in their Departments. That dates from 1st August, 1929, however, and they continue to suffer the reduction of their salaries and pro-
motion during the period between the time when they were found to be conscientious objectors and left the Departments until 1st August, 1929. With regard to the conscientious objectors who in various ways came into conflict with the law, they were not restored to their Departments when the War was over, and they are not being restored at the present time. I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman quite correctly stated the facts, but I only recapitulate them for the further elucidation of the issue.
When we come to the interpretation of the facts, I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and more particularly one or two Members who followed him, have somewhat departed from strict accuracy. It has been said that we have singled out the conscientious objectors to give them favourable treatment. That is not really correct. What the Government have done is to deal with all the men who had Civil Service appointments at the time of the War, and who are in the Civil Service to-day, in the same way from and after 1st August, 1929. It is then said that we are promoting 230 men over the ex-service men. The hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) said that we were putting the conscientious objectors in a more advantageous position than the ex-service men. That is really not correct. It is not true that we are putting 230 conscientious objectors over the heads of ex-service men. What we are saying is that the fact that these 230 men were conscientious objectors shall not be a bar to their promotion, if for other reasons it would take place. The actual facts are that, including the largest number of men who can possibly be included, the total number to which this actually applies at the present time is not 230, but three, and of these three, two are in the Post Office, and it is only in order not to be open to the smallest question, that I have included them at all, because they are only technically being promoted in the way in question.
Therefore, it would be an abuse of words to refer to this action which the Government have taken as penalising the ex-service men. The hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian did not claim that; he practically said that the effect upon the chances of the ex-service men is negligible. He is not troubled about
the actual facts so much as about the principle which underlies it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Certainly, I think that that is not only a relevant, but a highly important consideration, and I shall not conclude my speech without dealing with it. Then it was said, both on this side of the House by the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown), and on the other side, that we were treating these men better than the men who joined up in the forces without permission. That is quite clearly incorrect.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: I did not say that.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It was said on the other side, at any rate. We are doing nothing of the kind. The men who joined up without permission were penalised for the short time between their joining up and 1st January, 1918; but after 1st January, 1918, they obtained the same increments and promotion as if they had been in the Departments all the time. I am not expressing an opinion at the moment, but that was the decision of the Government of the day. The conscientious objectors suffered the whole period from the time when they refused to join up, right up to 1st August, 1929. Therefore, it cannot possibly be alleged that these men are being treated better than the men who joined up without permission.

Major COLVILLE: Is it not the case that those conscientious objectors who succeeded in remaining at their posts, instead of going into the Army, drew pay at a higher rate than many men who went into the Army without permission, and that therefore they are in a better position?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The number who actually remained at their posts was very few. It is only a small proportion of the 230, but, as far as I understand, they were not given their normal pay. They were given alternatively their normal pay or the cost of finding a substitute, whichever was the less, and they were not given, as far as I understand, the increments which they would have got in the ordinary course. How far, when all that is taken into account, they might have been during that time as well or better off, it is difficult after this long
distance of time to state. I think that, in fact, they were penalised right up to 1st August, 1929.
Various other suggestions of ways in which the Government might have improved the conditions of ex-service men who are in the Civil Service, or who come under the categories to which I have referred were made. It has been suggested, for instance, that, in taking this action, the Government have gone only part of the way, and that they should have gone further still, and brought back into the Civil Service and restored to their full positions those members who had come into direct conflict with the law, and who hitherto had been kept outside. Quite apart from any view that may be taken in regard to that matter, it would be quite impracticable to take that course at the present time. These men have been out of the Civil Service now from 12 to 16 years, and it would not be possible to bring them back at the present day. Then it has been suggested that the men who joined up for the War before they were appointed to the Civil Service, ought to have their positions reviewed. The hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich, with his great care and zeal for the ex-service men, which we all appreciate, and which those who have occupied my position have endeavoured to meet, takes a view with regard to the ex-service men.

Sir F. HALL: The "P" class men.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is a very large issue, and I do not think that this is the proper occasion on which to deal with it. Not only I, but my predecessors, have endeavoured to deal fairly with the ex-service men in all those groups which have been referred to in different parts of the House.
Now I would like to come to the principle underlying this matter. The question, it seems to me, and it seems to the Government, is whether the time has not come when the distinction that has been made all these years must come to an end. We claim that, in the interests of the Civil Service, which must count first, where you have a number of men acting in various capacities, and where you want to choose a man to put into a certain place, the prime consideration must, after all, be the man's fitness for the job. But it is said on the other side of the House
that you ought not to take that course. It is suggested that you still ought to put some punishment upon those men who, I think the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich would say, failed the country in the hour of need. I should like in that connection to recall to the House two extracts from speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). Speaking in this House in 1917 he used these words:
When people are acting conscientiously … their conscience must not be forced, and when they obey their conscience … they must not be punished."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1917; col. 1224, Vol. 99.]
In another speech he made in the same year he said:
My hon. Friend said that the safety for the public is the supreme law. It is profoundly untrue. If the safety of the public is the supreme law the sinking of the 'Lusitania' was right and the bombing of towns and the killing of children would be right. The safety of the public is not the supreme law. The divine will is the supreme law, and it is because the conscientious objector is mistakingly and perversely holding to the idea that he is wrong. To the credit of the country it is required of us being conscientious men in favour of Christianity that we should respect that conviction and support them in what they do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1917; col. 319, Vol. 95.]

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Has the hon. Gentleman always believed what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil)?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think that interjection is somewhat irrelevant. When I am dealing with a deeply felt conviction on the part of hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite I think it is perfectly fair to point out that one who feels deeply, whose convictions I am sure they would respect, and who was strongly opposed to conscientious objectors, nevertheless took the view that those men ought not to be punished for their conscientious objection.
When I come to my own point of view, it is this: I look back on those agonising years when the War was being fought and I see all those men who, sacrificing everything that was dear to them, went out to the War. They faced the risks of war and, more even than that, they endured
the whole beastliness of the trenches. When I think of the sacrifice and the heroism of those men I feel they showed a wonderful bravery. But when I look back I also see the men who, quite sincerely, from their deepest convictions, took a different view. They stood out against what was the almost universal opinion of the day; and surely it cannot be denied that they showed the very deepest courage in so doing. They faced ridicule, they faced contempt, they faced physical violence and risk to life in their own way. I do not believe that the brave men who went out to the War, risked their lives and made the great sacrifice, would, speaking as a whole, support the attitude of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who object to the recognition of the men who showed their courage and their bravery on a different plane from them.

Sir F. HALL: May I put one question? What would have happened if the whole of the country had taken up the same attitude as the conscientious objectors?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is attempting to put one of those posers which were put all through the War. Even if they were relevant then, I do not think they are relevant now. We cannot sum up human beings in that way. We have to take the various individualities with their various points of view. To the hon. and gallant Member the conscientious objector appears a coward, or a fool, or a knave. It may be that to some people even the views of the hon. and gallant Member himself do not appear to be the last word in wisdom, but those who do not share his view, who may think his view is misguided, and even wrong, will give him credit for the sincerity of his convictions, and I would ask him, with that courtesy which he always shows, to give credit to the sincerity of the convictions of those who take a different view. As I was saying, I do not believe the brave men who faced the War object to the course taken and the Government are confident that they are interpreting the heart of this great, tolerant nation when they decide to bury the differences of the past and to go forward to the future as a united people.

Earl WINTERTON: We hold the Government solely responsible for
resuscitating what I think all of us will agree is the unhappy question of the conscientious objector. But for the astonishing action of the Government, without previous notice to the country or to this House, and when Parliament was not sitting, in abrogating—according to the words in their own circular—the undertaking given on behalf of the Government of the day some eight years ago, this Debate would not have been necessary, and the question of the conscientious objector which I gather from the hon. Gentleman's speech he would like to see buried, would never have been resurrected. This is not an occasion for self-righteousness on either side of the House. Those of us who served in the War have no wish to represent ourselves as having been finer people than anyone else, and, equally, those who were conscientious objectors, or who speak for conscientious objectors, have no right to represent themselves in a self-righteous way. At any rate their self-righteousness was not accepted by the great majority of their fellow subjects, at the time of the War.
Therefore, I do not propose to discuss the moral qualities of conscientious objectors, though I may say in passing, and it is right that it should be said in view of statements from the opposite side, that it has been generally held in the world that it is the duty of a man to defend his own country; and the fact that Great Britain, alone of the European Powers engaged in the War, allowed exemption on conscientious grounds, does not by itself constitute any tribute to the moral qualities of those exempted. It may well be that those who, at the time, were in favour of that exemption, such as my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), were wrong in their views, and certainly their views were not generally shared in the trenches at the time, because I happen to have been in the trenches. When, further, the hon. Member who sits behind the Minister says, as he is entitled to do, that he did not think the best thing a man could do was to die for his country, he is not expressing the universally held opinion. No doubt he has heard what is perhaps the most beautiful of the sayings of the ancient[...]:
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori."
"It is a sweet and honourable thing to die for one's country." There do happen
to be in the world a large number of people who hold that view, and whether they be right or wrong, it is not for any of us to say that the view is reprehensible.
I am well aware that most of those who objected to service in the War based their objection on their reading of certain passages in Scripture. Those of us who differ from them believe that their reading was not sufficiently extensive. For example, we might claim that a man or woman basing his or her views on the injunctions "Judge not, that ye be not judged" and "Condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned," would be justified in declining to serve on a jury, and yet the law has always held that a person called upon to serve on a jury must do so, whatever his or her moral feelings. At this distance of time I do not want to go into the moral qualities of conscientious objectors. It is quite clear that we on this side of the House will never accept the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it is equally certain they will never accept our point of view, and, after all, that is not really an issue in this Debate, although a great many hon. Members have devoted their speeches to it.
What is at issue is a much more vital matter, the pledge given by the Government to the ex-service civil servants. I greatly regret that the hon. Gentleman did not answer the two questions which were put to him from this side of the House. He was asked, first, why it was that no mention was made of this matter at the General Election. If you are going to ask the House of Commons to abrogate a pledge solemnly given on a question which has excited as much controversy as any question during the last 15 years, surely the least you can do is to mention that fact to the electors at the General Election. Numbers were given by the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) to whom we listened to-day, as always, with great interest, even though we may not agree with his views. He—or perhaps it was an hon. Member behind me—told us that there were no less than 148,000 ex-service men in the Civil Service, of whom 46,000 were disabled ex-service men. There is that number of ex-service men out of a total of 223,000 civil servants. With such a
proportion of ex-service men in the Civil Service surely it was the plain duty of any Government which was making a bid to hold office in this country to tell the public they were going to abrogate the pledge which had been given and take away from these ex-service men in the Civil Service the privilege which, at any rate in theory, they had had of not seeing conscientious objectors promoted over their heads; yet not a word was said at the General Election. At a time when we on this side of the House, and even their own supporters, complain that the Government are not carrying out their election pledges, why on earth do they want to do something for which they received no mandate at the election and which will re-open a lot of old sores?
7.0 P.M.
The second question the hon. Member was asked was why it was the Government made no announcement about this change in the two months which were at their disposal from the time they became a Government until Parliament adjourned on the 25th July. They ought to have made the announcement when they could have been questioned about it in the House, and when, if necessary, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition could have moved the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to such a grave departure from the policy of all previous Governments. To those questions we have had no answer from the hon. Gentleman. Can anyone deny that this is a breach of a pledge? I say it is a clear, definite and deliberate breach of a pledge which was given in July, 1918, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), who was a Member of the Government, and was replying to a Member of the House. In addition to that, the action of the Government is in direct contradistinction to the recommendations of the Select Committee in 1922. Before I come to the recommendation of the Committee, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the actual words of the Treasury Circular issued on the 10th September, because I think not all hon. Members are familiar with them. I put those words forward as an additional reason for saying that this is a clear, definite and deliberate breach of the pledge. What is the language which the Treasury itself used on the 10th Septem-
ber, 1929? The letter, which was signed by, I suppose, the Permanent Secretary, uses these words, which are really very significant:
I am to inform you that it has been decided that this undertaking should now be abrogated.
That undertaking is quoted above, as follows:
As stated in paragraph 6 of the Circular referred to, an undertaking was given in June, 1918, that conscientious objectors employed in the Civil Service who refused to serve in the Army shall not be employed over the heads of civil servants who have served or who are serving in the Army.
The Treasury letter goes on to say that that undertaking should now be abrogated. In view of that, can anyone opposite get up and say that there has been no breach of pledge this afternoon? They do not deny that there has been a breach. The hon. Gentleman does not deny it; he accepts, as he is bound to accept, the words of his own Treasury Circular, for which he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are responsible, and, in coming down to the House this afternoon, he, by his silence on the matter, has had to admit that the words of the Circular are perfectly clear and that there is an undertaking which has been abrogated. Now I come to the astonishing views expressed by the hon. Member for Banff (Major Wood) on the subject of the Committee's. Report. I only refer to them, because I think, in the interests of the hon. and gallant Member himself, it is clear that the matter should not be allowed to rest where it is. I have this Report by me, and the words at the end of it are:
Your committee are of opinion that the Government by issuing the Treasury letter of August, 1920, have thereby prejudiced the issue.
And it goes on to say that this letter, although it fell short of conferring upon conscientious objectors any claim to legal employment, had been generally treated in the Civil Service, etc.
For those reasons, your Committee recommend that the only action desirable," etc.
and it then proceeds to set out the two conditions which have been constantly quoted in this Debate, and which I do not wish to weary the House by quoting again. I discover, by turning to page 14 in the Report, which the hon. Gentleman
himself referred to, that the Chairman put the Question:
That this Report, as amended, be the Report of the Committee to the House, put, and agreed to.
The hon. Gentleman never voted against that Resolution. His references to votes which he gave at an earlier stage are quite irrelevant, because the only point we are concerned with is whether or not the hon. Gentleman accepted the Report in its final form. Not only did he not vote against it, but there was no Division. It was carried, in the language of the House, nemine contradicente.

Major WOOD: The Noble Lord does not want to do me an injustice. I should point out that on that final day I was not present. That is a sufficient reason why I did not vote against it. If he will look at page 12 of the Report, he will find that there was a Division on those words which he mentioned, "have thereby prejudiced the issue," and there were four votes for and four against. I was against those words being put in, and they were carried and put into the Report by the casting vote of the Chairman.

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made the matter even worse by his explanation than it appeared before. He told us now that he objected to a portion of the Report, and on the final day, when the Report was put to the Committee, he was not present. It is impossible for me to tell from the Report whether he was present or not.

Major WOOD: The Noble Lord said it was quite impossible for him to say whether I was there or not. He knows that each day has the names of the Members present.

Earl WINTERTON: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to finish my sentence, what I said was that it was impossible for me, from reading the Report, to have known whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman was present or not. I am not disputing for a moment whether he was present. Of course, I accept his word that he was absent. That, from his point of view, does not make the position any better. The fact is the Report was passed without a Division, and the hon. and gallant Member who was absent did not dissent. If he wished to dissent, having been absent from the final stage of the Committee's procedure when the
matter was discussed, a very clear course was open to him. He could have produced a draft report of his own. I assure the hon. and gallant Member that I am really as familiar with the procedure of those Committees as he is, and that I have taken the precaution of consulting the authorities on the subject. It is open to him to produce a draft report. When a Member does not dissent from a Report of a Select Committee, when the words which I have quoted appear in that Report, and the final Report of that Committee is carried unanimously, and when an hon. Member does not take the course I have mentioned, it has always been held that he agrees with that Report. I accept the statement the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made. It would be very unfair to him if I did not accept that statement that he did not agree with that Report, but it is very unfortunate, in view of the importance of the matter, that he did not make his disagreement much more clear at the time.

Major WOOD: I put my point quite clearly when I spoke before. I said that there were two methods of dealing with questions of this kind, either to proceed with the method of majority and minority reports or in the way we did, giving a full report of the proceedings showing each paragraph individual members disagreed with. We decided on the latter course. I know it would have been quite proper for me or anyone else to have produced a minority report, but we, as a committee, decided to proceed with the other method.

Earl WINTERTON: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not convince those above the Gangway. An even more interesting thing about his speech was that, while he told us he refused to be responsible for the report, he did not tell us in the course of his speech whether he agreed with the report. However, I will leave the matter there. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member's explanations will be of very considerable interest to his ex-service men supporters. I should like to ask again the question which has been asked from this side of the House constantly in this Debate by four or five of my hon. Friends who have spoken, but which has not been answered by the Minister. What justification have they for having
abrogated this undertaking—to use the long and tortuous words of the Treasury Circular—or, in plain English, for breaking this pledge?

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: It has lapsed.

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Gentleman has given such an extraordinary explanation that I will devote some attention to it. The hon. Gentleman is apparently under the impression that, when you give an undertaking on behalf of a Government to a very important body of people in the service of the Crown, you are entitled, after seven or eight years' time, on the same arguments used by the hon. and gallant Member for Banff, to say that the undertaking has lapsed. I am afraid that is not the view most people would take of a solemn undertaking. The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) in the course of his speech, claimed that the Governments of the War period recognised the legality of the conscientious objectors. It was indeed an important feature of his speech. He said that the Government of the day recognised the legality of conscientious objectors. Surely, that is an inadequate way of describing what really did occur. What happened, was that a Bill was passed placing upon the fit male population of this country the obligation to serve in the Army and certain exemptions were made in the case of conscientious objectors. The Government of the day, acting as employers towards civil servants, stated that, if these men did not join the Army, they would be subject to certain disabilities. In so doing, the Government of the day were not doing something which was not being done by any other employers. On the contrary, they were adopting a far milder attitude to conscientious objectors in the employ of the Crown than the majority of employers adopted towards conscientious objectors in their employ. Therefore, it is quite an inadequate way of describing the situation to do it in the terms used by the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton.
What is the justification, first of all, for breaking the pledge and the undertaking and, secondly, for promoting these
men over the ex-service men? What is the justification—again we have no answer to this question—for doing so at a time when many of those ex-service men—the numbers of whom are so large, being, as I said, over 148,000 out of 223,000—have grievances of their own, which are sincerely held, whether they are well founded or not, and when those grievances are still unredressed? The Government were asked by my hon. Friends on this side of the House whether they proposed to consider those grievances. It is quite obvious from the hon. Gentleman's reply that they do not propose to do so. It is no sufficient answer for him to give in that connection that the late Government did not redress them, because the late Government did not gratuitously affront ex-service men in the Civil Service by taking the action the present Government have taken.
I ask the Government, before we come to a Division, whether they are prepared to re-open the grievances of ex-service civil servants. We have had some astonishing statements from the other side of the House on the views of the British Legion on this matter. The hon. Gentleman who spoke from the third bench above the Gangway told us that the ex-service men of the country did not agree with the action that was being taken by my hon. Friends in this matter. That is not so. The British Legion agree most fully with the action which we are taking and object most strongly to the action of the Government. I do not know how any hon. Member could make such a statement. He seems strangely misinformed. The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton made much the same statement. He said that the ex-service men in the Civil Service did not want this Amendment passed. How is he able to judge? On his own showing, his union only represents some 20,000 out of 223,000 in the Civil Service. How does he know that the ex-service men in the Civil Service, who number no less than 148,000, do not agree with the views of the British Legion, of which a very large number of them are members? Let me quote the views of the British Legion on the subject—

Mr. SIMMONS: What are the views of the British Legion?

Earl WINTERTON: If the hon. Member does not know what are the views of the British Legion at this time, I will enlighten him.
The whole question was considered by a meeting of the National Executive Council of the Legion, which Council expressed profound dissatisfaction at the Government decision, and decided to press most strongly that any conscientious objector should not be reinstated or appointed to any post in the Civil Service whilst ex-service men are unemployed.
The Legion is further of the opinion that it would only be just, in view of the concession made to conscientious objectors, that ex-service men, who were taken on as temporary civil servants, and who have since made good, should be taken on the established staff, and also be allowed to count for pension and increment the period for which they were employed on a temporary basis.
It is quite obvious that the British Legion, which is the body above all others, in fact it is the only body, which represents the ex-service men, does not hold the view put forward by hon. Members opposite on this question.

Mr. SIMMONS: That is not true.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member cannot restrain himself, I shall have to ask him to leave the House.

Earl WINTERTON: The view put forward by hon. Members opposite with regard to the British Legion is not the view taken by those who sit on the Opposition side of the House nor by the great majority of ex-service men in the country. In taking up that position, hon. Members opposite cannot claim that they are carrying out the Christian principle of forgiving their enemies. The small and inglorious band of conscientious objectors almost invariably support hon. and right Gentlemen opposite, and, although the number of conscientious objectors is small, there is no organisation which has such a large proportion of conscientious objectors as the Socialist party in and out of Parliament. I hope those outside this House will remember that fact. A peculiar responsibility in this matter rests upon the Members of the Government which was in office in 1918, when the promise which has been referred to was given to ex-service men. Any candidate at the election in 1918 who had dared to tell the electors that the undertaking which was then given to ex-service men was going to be abrogated would not have retained his seat in this House.

Mr. LEIF JONES: The Noble Lord must not look at me, because I was opposed to what the Government did then.

Earl WINTERTON: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones), who is an old friend of mine, should have thought that I was looking at him. I was looking at the vacant place of his Leader, who has swallowed bigger principles than that.

HON. MEMBERS: "Order!" and Withdraw!"

Mr. JONES: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: If the Noble Lord does not give way, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne must not remain on his feet.

Earl WINTERTON: I am sorry.

Mr. JONES: The Noble Lord charged me with swallowing certain principles.

Earl WINTERTON: No.

Mr. JONES: I repudiated that charge in the Parliament to which the Noble Lord has referred, and I defended the conscientious objectors' right to be exempt from military service, because [...] believed in his conscience. Hon. Members here apparently do not believe in the test of conscience, but I do, and, when conscience asserts itself, I think it should have its way.

Earl WINTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I was not charging him with swallowing his principles. I should like to take this opportunity of saying that I think he has always maintained his principles in a manner which I respect. The person I was referring to when I said he was constantly swallowing his principles was the right hon. Gentleman's leader. Surely those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who did support the War would not like to see broken the pledge which was given to ex-service men, or action taken which will have the effect of bettering the position of conscientious objectors at the expense of those who risked their lives during the War. I cannot think that action of that kind can be palatable to those hon. Members opposite, nor in accordance with the traditions of the services which they gave during the Great
War, although it might be consistent with the lamentable and deplorable attitude from 1914–1918 of both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Major LLEWELLIN: There are one or two things which have been said in the course of this Debate to which I should like to reply as one who has come in contact with ex-service men since the War and as one who has kept in touch with them to this day. I have no hesitation in saying that a large number of ex-service men with whom I served during the War, and with whom I still keep in touch, do not take up the attitude indicated by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lang). The British Legion has been referred to, and, whatever hon. Members opposite may say about that body, it is the one organisation that most largely represents the ex-service men in this country. If you mention any organisation in the coal industry other than the Miners' Federation you will be told that the other organisations do not count, because the Miners' Federation represents the large majority of the men working in the coal industry. In the same way, I think we are entitled to quote the British Legion as being the big organisation representing the ex-service men of this country. We have heard from the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) the views which have been put forward on this question by the British Legion, and you cannot attend any branch of that organisation throughout the country without hearing the views expressed on this subject which we have put forward. Not long ago I attended a meeting of the "Old Contemptibles," and they supported the view which has been adopted on these benches this afternoon on this subject.

Mr. LANG: The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin) has referred to the British Legion. May I point out that, although my views are fully known and I support the conscientious objectors, I have been asked to become a vice-president of that Legion and some of my nomination papers were filled up exclusively by ex-service men, although my opponent was the late Financial Secretary to the War Office.

Major LLEWELLIN: I am sure the British Legion are very glad to have got a vice-president's subscription from the hon. Member for Oldham. Whether they get the hon. Member for Oldham to support their views in this House or not, I am certain that they will be very pleased to receive any small subscription he may give them as vice-president. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) said that these people really had a conscience, and acted from conscientious motives. A man who is a Quaker is a person who has been born and bred with certain ideas about war but there were alternatives open to conscientious objectors during the War. One alternative was that of serving in the non-combatant forces, but the man who said he was too conscientious to assist in carrying wounded men from the front on a stretcher has no sympathy from me. If they had joined the non-combatant forces, that is all they would have had to do, and, if that is against any man's conscience, I do not believe in his conscience. Those men could have joined for that purpose, and then there would not have been 230 of them, because they would have joined the other 50 in the non-combatant forces and they would have served their country in a way that could not have clashed with their conscience. We are dealing with people who stretch their conscience so far that they will not go anywhere where there is any danger of being injured. I say nothing against the 50 who were too conscientious to kill, but not too conscientious to go and help in the Royal Army Medical Corps to assist their fellows who were unfortunate enough to get injured. We see very clearly that there is a distinction here. The 230 with whom we are dealing here were not men of that sort. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) say that the pledge had lapsed, because, with his knowledge of the law of contract—

Mr. KNIGHT: May I explain? I meant that it had lapsed, because it wag the general sense of the community that it should lapse.

Major LLEWELLIN: I would put solemn pledges given in this House on the same basis as and, indeed, on a higher basis, than the contracts that firms
or individuals in this country make with one another. This House ought to set an example to trading firms and individuals in this country. Would the hon. and learned Member get up in any court of law and say, "This contract has lapsed because it is the general feeling of my clients that it should lapse"? That is why I was more astounded at that remark coming from him than I should have been had it come from other quarters of the House.

Mr. KNIGHT: It is quite conceivable that there might be circumstances in which, in the view of the parties to an agreement, it had lapsed, and it would be quite open to the parties to make that submission.

Major LLEWELLIN: It is quite right, according to the law of contract, that a contract should lapse when it is the view of both parties that it should lapse. Our position here is that not a single bit of evidence has been brought before us to-day by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or by anyone else to show that the other ex-service civil servants have consented to these people being pushed up above them, as they can be under this new Treasury Minute. I wish now to pass to some remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood). I am not going into the vexed question of whether this report was his report or not, but I should like to know how his position stands to-day, because his speech to-day contained a sentence which I could not quite understand. He said:
We thought that the minority, if minority there was, was fully protected in the Report.
How they could think that the minority was protected, if they did not know whether there was a minority or not, rather passes my comprehension. The hon. and gallant Member also said that he found that there was a quite explicit pledge—

Major WOOD: What I said was that we considered that, by the procedure we were following, any minority that there would be would be fully protected. I say so still. The report shows how we voted on each question at issue.

Major LLEWELLIN: The hon. and gallant Member has corrected me. I did not understand him to say that that was
his opinion, or the opinion of the Committee, when they decided which form the report was to take. I understand that to be his point, and I, of course, accept his word upon it. What he did go on to say was this:
We found that there was a quite explicit pledge. We did not like it, but we considered that we were bound by it.
Those words I took down as the hon. and gallant Member spoke them here this afternoon. Eight years ago he considered that there had been an explicit pledge, and he considered that he was bound by it. Was he going to issue a minority report? Was he going to issue any dissentient note? Is he going to vote against keeping that solemn pledge to-day? We are rather concerned to know what are the hon. and gallant Member's replies to these questions. We saw some very happy and, if I may say so, light figure-skating by the hon. and gallant Member on very thin ice. "Thin ice" is, perhaps, a permissible term in these days, when, in other parts of this great town, discussions are going on on matters concerning the high seas, but I shall be very interested to see what the attitude of the hon. and gallant Member is to-day. I am quite convinced that we have here a case in which the Government can continue to give a lead to private employers. Hitherto Governments have been pressing private employers to keep their names on the King's Roll by employing a certain number of ex-service men. That has been a very good lead, and it was adopted, I believe, by the Labour Government of 1924. The present Government are giving a very different lead in the attitude which they are taking to-day. The Government ought to maintain this high principle of sticking to those who stuck to their country during the War, and helping them along by giving employers and traders in this country a lead in that direction; and they are not carrying out that duty in issuing this Circular. I, for one, shall certainly vote for the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend against the breaking of this pledge to ex-service men.

Major COLFOX: I have always supposed that there were some conscientious objectors, and we have had this afternoon a statement certainly by one hon. Member opposite that he is a conscien-
tious objector. I am, of course, prepared to take his word as a true statement in his case, but I believe most strongly that a very large proportion of those who during the War professed conscientious objections were really only objectors to one thing, namely, to any risk of hurt to their own skins. I do not think we are at all justified in considering all those who liked so to call themselves for the purposes of the War to be conscientious objectors. I do not think there is any doubt that the bulk of them were not. I do not blame those people for adopting the attitude that they did. It was at that time a perfectly legal and lawful thing for them to do, but in doing what they did they abdicated, if I may use that word, their position as citizens of this country.
One of the fundamental duties of citizenship is to defend, or help to defend, the country in time of war, and, by voluntarily abdicating their position as citizens, they at the same time abdicated their position as citizens in regard to the privileges of citizenship; and, since they refused to take the responsibilities, it is only reasonable to suppose that at the same time they are unworthy of the privileges of citizenship. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has had his say, and I must ask him to allow me to have my say. I consider it to be a very shabby thing not to accept the responsibilities as well as the privileges of citizenship, and I know that in saying that I am voicing the opinion of a very large number, if not the majority, of those people who did take their responsibilities seriously, and who did take their share in defending their country in time of stress.
The question has been asked whether this disability of those who refused to accept their responsibilities should last for ever. In reply I would ask whether other war disabilities do not last for ever, or, at any rate, for a lifetime; and why should not this disability, voluntarily incurred by a large number of people in order to save themselves from what, in their opinion, were worse disabilities, last for their lifetime, just
as do disabilities honourably incurred? It is rather interesting to notice that all the support for this class of people comes from the Socialist party in this House, and in that term I include their allies who are no less Socialists than the official Socialist party. But it is quite impossible to square conscientious objections with any theory of Socialism, because any theory of Socialism postulates that the minority must fall in with the wishes of the majority.
I wonder if any Member of the Socialist party would suggest that, if and when they are in a position and consider it right to plunder and pillage all those who have private property in this country, and to nationalise the property and wealth of the country, they will then admit the validity of conscientious objections of owners of property? I take it that they will not. If only they were consistent—and, of course, consistency is not one of their vices—they would realise that it is hopeless to try to square any form of individual opinion and conscientious objection with their theory of Socialism, which, as I have said, must involve the subordination of the individual to the wishes of the community at large. The Socialists—and, as before, I include with them their no less Socialist allies—are always found to support people who have acted, or who may act, or who might act, to the disadvantage of the country which gave them birth, and they will never support the people who have loyally suffered and borne the burden and heat of the day. It is only another instance of what one is always noticing and expecting. The Socialists and the Liberal party are always letting down those who have done anything for the good of their country, and they always, therefore, refuse to help those who have helped the country in the past.

Mr. LEES: Who let the ex-service men down?

Major COLFOX: You have.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 149.

Division No. 238]
AYES.
[4.1 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Ferguson, Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast. W.)
Fielden, E. B.
Muirhead, A. J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Nicholson, O. Westminster)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Atkinson, C.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Grace, John
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Penny, Sir George


Balniel, Lord
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Beaumont, M. W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Berry, Sir George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ramsbotham, H.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hammersley, S. S.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Boyce, H. L.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bracken, B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxt'd, Henley)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Buchan, John
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Salmon, Major I.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Butler, R. A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hurd, Percy A.
Savery, S. S.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Iveagh, Countess of
Simms, Major-General J.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smithers, Waldron


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Knox, Sir Alfred
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Colman, N. C. D.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Colville, Major D. J.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Liewellin, Major J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Long, Major Eric
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Dalkelth, Earl of
Lymington, Viscount
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Macquisten, F. A.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Meller, R. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mond, Hon. Henry
Warrender, Sir Victor


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wells. Sydney R.


Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Sir Frederick Thomson and captain


Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Wallace.


Womersley, W. J.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Plcton-Turbervill, Edith


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Herriotts, J.
Pole, Major D. G.


Alpass, J. H.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Hoffman, P. C.
Pybus, Percy John


Arnott, John
Hopkin, Daniel
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Attlee, Clement Richard
Horrabin, J. F.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Isa[...]cs, George
Richards, R.


Batey, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Bellamy, Albert
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Romeril, H. G.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Kelly, W. T.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Kennedy, Thomas
Rowson, Guy


Benson, G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Bowen, J. W.
Knight, Holford
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Lang, Gordon
Sanders, W. S.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sandham, E.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Lawrence, Susan
Scurr, John


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Lawson, John James
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Leach, W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cameron, A. G.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sherwood, G. H.


Cape, Thomas
Lees, J.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shillaker, J. F.


Charleton, H. C.
Logan, David Gilbert
Shinwell, E.


Chater, Daniel
Longbottom, A. W.
Simmons, C. J.


Church, Major A. G.
Longden, F.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Cluse, W. S.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lowth, Thomas
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lunn, William
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Cove, William G.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Dagger, George
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Dallas, George
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Dalton, Hugh
McElwee, A.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip,


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. L.
Sorensen, R.


Day, Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Dickson, T.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby).


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
March, S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow).


Duncan, Charles
Markham, S. F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Ede, James Chuter
Marley, J.
Tinker, John Joseph


Edmunds, J. E.
Marshall, Fred
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)
Mathers, George
Vaughan, D. J.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Matters, L. W.
Viant, S. P.


Elmley, Viscount
Maxton, James
Walker, J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Messer, Fred
Wallace, H. W.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Middleton, G.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Mills, J. E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Montague, Frederick
Wellock, Wilfred


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
West, F. R.


Gillett, George M.
Morley, Ralph
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Glassey, A. E.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Gossling, A. G.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gould, F.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H.(Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Wilson, J.(Oldham)


Groves, Thomas E.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exete[...])
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Oldfield, J. R.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Owen. H. F. (Hereford)



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Paling, Wilfrid
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Palmer, E. T.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Division No. 239.]
AYES.
[7.44 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Herriotts, J.
Picton-Tubervill, Edith


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Pole, Major D. G.


Alpass, J. H.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Hoffman, P. C.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Angell, Norman
Hollins, A.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Arnott, John
Hopkin, Daniel
Richards, R.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Horrabin, J. F.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Johnston, Thomas
Ritson, J.


Barnes, Alfred John
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich).


Barr, James
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Romeril, H. G.


Bellamy, Albert
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Rowson, Guy


Benson, G.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Kelly, W. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Birkett, W. Norman
Kennedy, Thomas
Sandham, E.


Bowen, J. W.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Scurr, John


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kinley, J.
Sexton, James


Bromley, J.
Knight, Holford
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brothers, M.
Lang, Gordon
Sherwood, G. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Shield, George William


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Shillaker, J. F.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Lawrence, Susan
Shinwell, E.


Cameron, A. G.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Simmons, C. J.


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Leach, W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Compton, Joseph
Lees, J.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Cove, William G.
Lindley, Fred W.
Snell, Harry


Daggar, George
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dallas, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Sorensen, R.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Longbottom, A. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Day, Harry
Longden, F.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Strauss, G. R.


Dickson, T.
Lowth, Thomas
Sullivan, J.


Duncan, Charles
Lunn, William
Sutton, J. E.


Ede, James Chuter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Edmunds, J. E.
McElwee, A.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
McEntee, V. L.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
McKinlay, A.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Elmley, Viscount
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Foot, Isaac.
Mansfield, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Forgan, Dr. Robert
March, S.
Vaughan, D. J.


Freeman, Peter
Markham, S. F.
Viant, S. P.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)
Marley, J.
Walkden, A. G.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Marshall, Fred
Walker, J.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mathers, George
Wallace, H. W.


Gillett, George M.
Matters, L. W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Glassey, A. E.
Maxton, James
Watkins, F. C.


Gossling, A. G.
Melville, Sir James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gould, F.
Messer, Fred
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Middleton, G.
Wellock, Wilfred


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mills, J. E.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Gray, Milner
Montague, Frederick
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
West, F. R.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Morley, Ralph
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Groves, Thomas E.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Wilson, C. H.(Sheffield, Attercliffe).


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Muff, G.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Murnin, Hugh
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Oldfield, J. R.
Wise, E. F.


Hardie, George D.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Harris, Percy A.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wright, W. (Ruthergien)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Palmer, E. T.



Haycock, A. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Hayes, John
Henry Perry, S. F.
Mr. William Whiteley and Mr. Paling.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Atkinson, C.
Bird, Ernest Roy


Albery, Irving James
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Boyce, H. L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Bracken, B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Briscoe, Richard George


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Nith'l'd., Hexham)


Atholl, Duchess of
Birchall, Major sir John Dearman
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)




Butler, R. A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Remer, John R.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Salmon, Major I.


Chapman, Sir S.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Christie, J. A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Colman, N. C. D.
Iveagh, Countess of
Savery, S. S.


Colville, Major D. J.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Simms, Major-General J.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Skelton, A. N.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cunilffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Dalrymple-white, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Long, Major Eric
Thomson, Sir F.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Lymington, Viscount
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Train, J.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Marjorlbanks, E. C.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Everard, W. Lindsay
Meller, R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Ferguson, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fielden, E. B.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wells, Sydney R.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Muirhead, A. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ganzoni, Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W. G. (Ptrst'ld)
Withers, Sir John James


Gower, Sir Robert
O'Neill, Sir H.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Grace, John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Womersley, W. J.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Penny, Sir George
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)



Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Pownall, Sir Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsbotham, H.
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Warrender.

Main Question again proposed.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I want to turn to a totally different subject from that which we have been discussing, and one which is raised very largely by the next Amendment on the Paper. No doubt we shall be hearing from the hon. Member who put it down the broad position that he desires to raise in reference to the important question of maternity and child welfare. We have not had an opportunity during this Parliament of raising this very vital matter, perhaps one of the most vital matters from the point of view of the health conditions of the country. I suppose, if one had to examine into the progress that we are making in connection with health affairs, one of the aspects which we should first, investigate to see whether we were making progress is this question of maternity and child welfare, and whether it is possible within the present law and administration to take any further step
forward. That is a matter to which I invite hon. Members to give their consideration, because it really is a subject on which I can appeal to all sections to see whether we can advance the cause which we all have at heart.
I suppose there are two aspects of the matter which have provoked considerable public attention. One is a very gratifying one, but the other is giving considerable anxiety to social workers and health administrators. So far as the test of the infantile mortality rate is concerned, I think the country can quite rightly congratulate itself upon thy position, but when we come to the maternal mortality rate there is another and a very different aspect of the matter which is nothing like so encouraging, in fact a state of affairs which provokes a considerable amount of disquiet.
In connection with both those matters we have to realise that the work is being carried on by a sort of triple partnership. There is the work of the Ministry of Health, which I suppose may be called of a supervisory character—assisting by
grants and by general direction this important work—then there is the valuable work of the local authorities, and thirdly, and certainly by no means least, the work of the great voluntary agencies. The association of the three has been of the most valuable character, and I do not think anyone, on whatever side he sits, would desire to disturb that partnership but would rather,, if possible, encourage even closer relations than have existed in the past. In approaching this matter we want, if possible, looking at it from the position of the local authorities, to endeavour to bring about improvements in several important directions. Take, for instance, the work of the smaller local authorities and the many local officials, who are undoubtedly doing valuable work. I would not desire to decry for a moment the work of the smaller authorities, but there is no doubt that a considerable improvement could in many cases be obtained by transferring it to larger authorities, such as county councils.
8.0 P.M.
One of the most striking advantages, one with which anyone will agree who gives a moment consideration to this aspect of the case, arises in this connection. With larger authorities you have the school medical service and, if you can co-ordinate the work in connection with maternity and child welfare, and link it up with the larger authorities, by that means you secure co-ordination of your local maternity and child welfare work with the school medical service of the local authority. That undoubtedly is a very great gain indeed. If you rely upon your smaller authority you lose that great advantage. The smaller authority may be doing good work, and its officials may be equally zealous and desirous of improving these important conditions, but you cannot get the linking up which can be obtained by transferring this work to the larger local authorities of the country. I know that a good many hon. Members who speak on behalf of the local authorities point to the individual interest which is given by the smaller local authority, and to the more exact local knowledge of the smaller local authority. We do not want to lose that very valuable benefit in our public life in this country, but, on the other hand, there will be an over-whelming advantage if, in connection with maternity and child welfare, you co-
ordinate the work of the larger authority and the school medical service. You will obtain a result which will do a great deal towards improving the health conditions of the children of this country, and you will practically have continuity in the supervision of the health of the children of this country from birth up to the school-leaving age. You can only obtain this by entrusting this work, very largely, to the local authorities of the country. If you reject that idea you will be thrown back upon a multiplicity of authorities up and down the country, and upon the position where one local authority does not know what the other local authority is doing. It not only means considerable waste from the point of view of money and energy, but it is not improving one of the most vital and necessary services in this country.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, when she comes to reply upon this question, will be able to say that she and the Ministry are doing everything to bring about continuity of administration and co-ordination so urgently necessary and desirable. It is not, to a very large extent, a question of money. I cannot recollect in recent years in this House when money has been grudged for maternity and child welfare services. When the Estimates of the Ministry of Health have been brought forward, I do not think that anyone has challenged seriously the careful estimates which have been made with regard to the amount of money which has been spent in this important connection. The local authorities of the country are spending £1,500,000 a year. Although times are difficult and we have before us the probability of still heavier taxation, I do not think that there are many people who would desire for a moment to cut down the expenditure in relation to the very excellent services which the local authorities are providing at the present time. The sum of £1,500,000 was spent in the year 1928–29, and, if there is any further sum necessary in the forthcoming year, I do not think it will seriosuly be challenged.
Whatever one's view may be about local administration and State supervision, do not think that there will be many Members of the House who will desire to see the work of the voluntary associations dealing with maternity and child welfare in any way cut down. The grant which
we vote from this House to the voluntary associations of the country for this work is something like £230,000 a year, and this is money very well spent. I do not wish to raise the particular functions in a community of the local authority versus the voluntary agencies, because I believe that, from the point of view of the future of the children and the benefit which can be afforded to them from the health point of view, we can very well rely upon, and take advantage of, the work of both the local authority and of the voluntary agencies.
While I have paid a tribute to the excellent work which the local authorities are doing in many directions, I desire also to say that there is no country in the world which is as proud of its voluntary institutions and the work which they are doing as is this country. You may look at it from the point of view of hospital treatment and hospital provisions. One of the finest features in the country to-day is the fact that all classes of the community join in assisting the voluntary agencies and the voluntary hospitals in this work. When I was at the Ministry of Health I visited several voluntary institutions which were very largely financed by the weekly contributions of the working men and working women of the country. Not only were they financed by their weekly contributions, but representatives of the large works in the particular districts concerned sat upon the boards of these voluntary hospitals, and took their part in the direction of health maternity and child welfare work as ably as did the representatives of the employers. I believe that the moment you threatened the voluntary institutions of the country by any curtailment of their activities, or endeavoured in any way to cut down their grant, the first people who would rise in protest against such action would be large numbers of working men and working women who have made such splendid contributions, not only in money but also in service, to this particular work. I hope we shall hear from the representative of the Ministry of Health to-night that the Ministry are going to assist in every way they possibly can the work both of the local authorities and of the voluntary agencies.
I want to raise also, in reference to this work and its administration, the importance of health visiting. I am glad to see
that this is one of the matters which arise in connection with the Estimates which we are considering, and that the work of the health visitor is becoming more and more appreciated in this country, and almost equally with the work of the medical man and of the midwife. I am glad to hear that the number of candidates who are entering what is really a profession is increasing, and that a very large number of women particularly are taking up a six months' course of training before entering the examination necessary to become a properly accredited health visitor of the local authorities of the country. Formerly it was not an occasion for astonishment when anyone thought that she could be a health visitor without any exceptional training or knowledge; the desire to do good, and the anxiety to help people suffering from bad health were considered sufficient qualifications for what is really a very difficult and important aspect of maternity and child welfare work. I am glad that that particular view of the work of health visitation very largely has disappeared, and I hope that it will soon disappear altogether.
We shall only obtain a complete and efficient service of health visitors if the local authorities of the country and the voluntary agencies which employ them realise that these people who do important and valuable work should have proper and adequate remuneration for their services. I have often thought that it has been a reproach, both to the local authorities and to the voluntary agencies, that the standard of remuneration given to people who are playing very important parts in health administration in the country has been inadequate. One of the best suggestions which I have seen, not only for improving their financial position, but for encouraging them to become better qualified, is a suggestion that advances of salary should be made to them during their period of training. It is often very difficult, indeed, for people engaged in this work to enter upon a period of six months' training without any remuneration whatever. If this were insisted upon in a large number of cases it would be practically impossible for men and women, and particularly women, to embark upon this work at all. One has only to give a moment's consideration to the domestic circumstances of large numbers of people in this country
who desire to enter upon this work to realise how impossible it would be unless local authorities and others realised that some advance of remuneration were made during their period of training. I am very glad also to recognise, and I hope that the Ministry of Health will encourage it as far as they can, that more and more local authorities are realising the necessity of doing something in that direction. During the last period when I had the privilege of being associated at the Ministry of Health with my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) there were 12 institutions which were recognised by the Department for the training of health visitors. I hope that it will be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us that more centres of this kind are contemplated, if they have not already been established.
What is the number of health visitors upon which we have to rely for this important work? Is it sufficient? Can we do anything more to increase the number of people who are doing this most valuable service? I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us the number of people so employed. According to the last figures that I have, there were 2,300 people employed by the local authorities as health visitors. Although that is a substantial number, it does not seem a sufficient number for the population of this country. If we could encourage more people to take up this important work it would, in the long run, be a saving not only so far as health conditions are concerned, but a saving from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence. One of the things that is costing this country very much at the present time in our industrial life is the bad health of very large numbers of workers. We have only to look at the figures supplied in connection with National Health administration, and to note the number of weeks lost every year on account of bad health, to realise the seriousness of the position. If those weeks could be saved, whether by improving the conditions of work or by increasing the number of health visitors, even at a very considerable cost to the local authorities, it would not be a bad investment, looked at simply from the financial aspect. I hope that we shall be able to make same advance in encouraging the local authorities to go forward with this work.
Anyone endeavouring to raise this question to-night, and hoping to hear a pronouncement from the Ministry of Health in regard to maternity and child welfare, could not forget the very serious position so far as maternal mortality is concerned. Apart from the consequences and sufferings of a dreadful disease like cancer, this is one of the most serious health questions of the day. It is a very painful and sad thing that the maternity mortality rate has practically remained stationary for the last 20 years. When one thinks of the advances made in the science of medicine, of the advances which civilisation has brought to us, of the increased knowledge and skill, it is a most depressing and extraordinary fact that we have not been able to make progress in overcoming this most serious condition of things. Why has the maternal mortality rate remained in this position for so long? It has not been for want of endeavour on the part of local authorities and voluntary institutions to surmount the difficulty. It does not simply arise in connection with the poorer districts as contrasted with what we may call the richer communities. It is a very puzzling state of affairs.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether any progress has been made with, or whether any further light has been thrown upon, this very distressing problem, and whether, by means of administration or otherwise, the Ministry of Health has been advised that further steps can be taken to deal with this tragic condition of things. It was, I think, in the last few months of the Administration of my right hon. Friend that two Committee were appointed. The first Committee was appointed to co-ordinate and stimulate research relating to the prevention of maternal mortality. That Committee was appointed with the general support and acquiescence of all who had been brought into touch with the problem. We wanted to know whether it was a problem in relation to the medical side that was placing so many mothers in the serious position which has been revealed by the statistics with unvarying regularity for the last 20 years. It was a very wise step to try, with the best brains of the medical profession and others associated with them, to find out whether there is any medical aspect of this matter, which is causing so much
concern amongst social workers, which accounts for this detrimental state of affairs. It was decided that it was a vital necessity to promote local investigation into maternal deaths, and it was considered that it would be of considerable value if, in all these cases of maternal mortality, the exact facts could be brought together from the various local authorities to see whether there were certain facts which could account for this serious position.
I desire to know whether it has been possible to conduct investigations on these particular lines and what steps have been taken to collect and classify what must prove to be most valuable information. The form of inquiry sent out was approved by the members of the medical profession and the Ministry of Health so that no one could in any way question the kind of information that would be obtained. Any information given in relation to these deaths was, of course, to be of a strictly confidential character. It was made quite clear that any information which was supplied would not be made public. I should like to know the position so far as that particular matter is concerned.
I want to refer to another aspect of this subject, equally important and perhaps more closely connected with the working women of the country. I should like to know what steps have been taken during the last 10 or 12 months to improve the training of the midwives of the country. When we consider the question of maternity and child welfare we are bound to come to the conclusion that we owe our progress, or our lack of it, to the knowledge and training of the midwives of the country. Not long ago it used to be a considerable reproach to this country that the number of women who attended births were of a most uneducated and unsatisfactory character so far as their knowledge and medical attainments were concerned. Mrs. Gamp used to be a very familiar figure indeed, but I am glad to think that the days of Mrs. Gamp are rapidly going by, and it is most gratifying to know that 90 per cent. of the women on the midwives roll are now trained midwives. That is a most gratifying step forward, and it is all the more gratifying when it is realised that of the births in this country over 60 per cent. are attended and notified by midwives.
To a large extent the progress made in connection with maternity and child welfare work depends upon the ability and attainments of the midwives, and it is very vital indeed that the Ministry of Health should do all they can to encourage the best type of women to enter what is undoubtedly a most important profession at the present time. I do not hesitate to say that the midwives of the country are badly paid, although considerable improvement has been made in this respect. But if we want to attract the best type of women we shall undoubtedly have to do more to improve the conditions of a very difficult and in many respects a distasteful service; make it much easier for women to enter and make better provision for them in point of view of pensions and for those times, through sickness or otherwise, when they are not able to engage in, their particular profession. I hope the Ministry of Health will do, as I feel sure they will, everything they can to encourage and promote improvements in the service.
One of the most gratifying features of this subject is the great improvement in the infantile mortality rate. If we regret the maternal mortality rate at any rate we can say that there has been a great improvement in connection with the infantile mortality rate. It is one of the best signs, from the point of view of health progress of recent years, and it has been achieved by the triple partnership of a sympathetic Minister of Health, vigilant local authorities, and not least the great work of voluntary associations up and dawn the country. Let me say a word in reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member who emphasised the need of a complete service of maternity and child welfare and that it should be made "available for the inhabitants of all the appropriate areas of local government." I desire to utter one word of warning. We must not forget that with this maternity and child welfare work we must also include the work of the great approved societies of the country who administer the maternity benefit, which is much appreciated by large numbers of insured persons up and down the country. They certainly have a right to be fully consulted in any change of administration which may be desired in connection with child welfare. They have a vast stake, from the health point
of view, in this matter. These societies and institutions have undoubtedly, in their appropriate areas, contributed to the work that has been done in connection with maternity and child welfare.
If we were to adopt the proposal that is made here, that a complete service shall be available in all the appropriate areas of local government, approved societies of all types, friendly societies and trade unions, would resent very much any suggestion that the work that they are doing in connection with maternity benefit under the National Health Insurance Act, should be interfered with. I hope that in any future administration of the scheme or in any proposals which may be in contemplation, the approved societies will be fully consulted. I trust that any observations made in this Debate will encourage the local authorities and the voluntary institutions to go on with this excellent work. I have not indulged in any criticism of them, because my object has been rather to encourage them in their work and to invite the representative of the Ministry of Health to tell us what future plans there may be, so far as the administrative side of the work is concerned. We are not able to-night to deal with any legislative proposals. But do not let anyone despise what can be done by administration alone.
I was interested to read only a short time ago that the present Minister of Health, after some experience of the Department, said that if only the local authorities and other agencies of the country would put into operation all the existing laws, what a great benefit could be brought about in the health and other conditions of the people. That is an observation with which I can agree. A great deal can undoubtedly be done if local authorities and voluntary agencies, supported by public opinion, go forward. I want to put a question or two. What is the present position in connection with the administration of the Poor Law and in connection with test work? There have been constant questions in the House as to where the larger local authorities of to-morrow will stand.
I do not want to strike a controversial note, but we have had very varying views put forward in the past by the Minister of Health on this very important matter.
I remember very well, too, the First Commissioner of Works making some powerful speeches on the subject. I shall not rake up from my memory all the things of which he accused my right hon. Friend, the late Minister of Health, and myself; I shall not think of the adjectives and other epithets that he employed regarding us. I was sometimes afraid to go home in case my relatives might believe the right hon. Gentleman—that it was some terrible criminal they were fostering in their bosom. Strange to say, the particular actions of which we were accused are still going on. I have no doubt that the First Commissioner has been very fully employed. I can imagine no man who could be more employed at the present time than the First Commissioner of Works, if he fully carries out his duty. He has the whole responsibility of the London parks on his shoulders, and he is one of the three upon whom rests the problem of dealing with unemployment. No doubt with all these duties he does not know what is going on with regard to this particular work.
I am sorry to say that, as far as I can make out from questions in the House—this may surprise the Minister of Pensions also—stone-breaking is still going on under a Socialist Government. That is a very sad thing. All those things upon which we were told that we were criminals and murderers are still being performed under the jurisdiction of a Socialist Minister of Health. I think the First Commissioner will have to stir himself and find out exactly what is going on, and at any rate tell the Minister of Health, in private if not in public, some of the charges that he used to throw across the Floor of the House at us in his more excitable moments. We would like to know exactly where the local authorities stand. Is stone-breaking still going on? Is it still the policy of the Ministry of Health to permit this task to be performed? What is the administrative policy so far as tasks in connection with the unemployed are concerned? That would be useful information, not only to the House but to a number of local authorities who are perplexed by the varying attitudes of the Minister of Health and his colleagues.
Some people, I am afraid, begin to lose faith in politics and politicians because of
incidents of this character. The right hon. Gentlemen when in opposition fiercely denounced their opponents, and, curiously enough, when they occupy positions of responsibility they do exactly as their political opponents before them had done. That does shake faith in political institutions and in the character of politicians. I am one of those who desire to support our Parliamentary institutions. I want to see the character of our politicians, on whichever side they sit, fully sustained. I hope that in addition to giving some account of the administrative side of maternity and child welfare work, the Parliamentary Secretary will devote herself to the task of explaining exactly where we stand with regard to test work, and give a full account of the administration of her Department in this important matter.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: It is not my intention to intervene for any considerable length of time in this discussion. I am very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) has raised the important question of maternity and child welfare because I know of no question which is more important in the life of the people of this country. Listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, my mind went back to those days when we sat on the opposite side of the House, arid when we were pressing the right hon. Gentleman and his chief, the then Minister of Health, to remove maternity and child welfare work out of the block grant system as outlined in the Local Government Act of 1929 which was then under consideration. Despite all our efforts, and even the efforts of some Members of his own party, the right hon. Gentleman resisted that suggestion and this important work is now being dealt with by local authorities under the block grant system which, to my mind, will mean a considerable slowing up on the part of the local authorities in undertaking this work. I listened with great pleasure, however, to the right hon. Gentleman this evening as the newest convert to the policy of dealing speedily with maternity and child welfare work throughout the length and breadth of this country. I shall get the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, and I shall preserve my copy in anticipation of further Debates on this important subject.
I join with the right hon. Gentleman in paying a tribute to the wonderful work which the voluntary organisations are doing, but it is a work which is more or less negligible as regards permanency. I have been interested in maternity and child welfare work for the last 10 years, and, to me, the awful wastage of human life that goes on throughout the country is a blot upon our boasted civilisation. It is not that the Minister of Health is wrong. It is not that the local medical officers of health are wrong. It is not that the voluntary agencies are wrong. What is wrong is the existence of the horrible conditions under which so many of our people live. Anyone interested in this work knows that the highest incidence of infant mortality is found in those areas where the people are living under conditions which are unworthy of the name or the spirit of Christianity. I know areas where people are herded together under conditions which are almost impossible to describe, and where the incidence of infant mortality is close upon 150 per 1,000 children born. For this House or the country generally to tolerate conditions which allow 150 children out of every thousand to die before reaching the age of 12 months, is a positive disgrace to all of us.
I am convinced that this awful wastage of human life is due to the conditions existing in slumdom and I welcome the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite because the present Minister of Health is introducing his Bill for making a wholesale attack upon the slums and no doubt, it will have the support of the right hon. Gentleman after that speech. In attempting to demolish the slum areas we, on this side of the House, are at all events making some contribution towards getting away from the awful position which now exists as regards infant mortality in this country. Because of the right hon. Gentleman's speech just now I look forward with pleasurable anticipation to his participation in the Debates on the Slum Clearance Bill and I expect to find him helping this party to pass that Bill through the House as quickly as possible. I hope, with him, that this high rate of infant mortality will soon be a thing of the past—I am sure all sections of the House share in that hope—and when that time arrives we on this side will be able
to take credit to ourselves for having made some contribution to that happy result.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I wish to refer to the question of test work, and, although I have no wish to sit in judgment on the respective claims of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) on the one hand, and the Minister of Health or the Parliamentary Secretary on the other, at least I share the right hon. Gentleman's disappointment that after so many months of a Labour Government nothing has been done to remedy this grave state of affairs and to do away with this very great injustice. In passing, I should like to congratulate the Government on the effect of Section 4 of the Unemployment Insurance Act which abolished the "genuinely seeking work" condition. The effect in my own constituency has been to remove from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. off the Poor Law and put them back on the Employment Exchange, and I imagine such has been the effect all over the country. In so far as that has been the result, it is all to the good. The ratepayers have been saved that amount of money and the State has undertaken a charge which ought to have been its charge all along. As regards test work may I begin by describing what test work is because there is a certain amount of ignorance on the subject. A test worker is an able-bodied man who, owing to a law of Queen Elizabeth is not allowed to receive relief without doing test work. The theory of that law is a very excellent one. It is that you cannot pay a man, or give him relief, for doing nothing, when perhaps side by side with him, or only a short distance away, there are men who are being paid only a small wage for a hard day's work.
I have no fault to find with that theory of Poor Law relief, but, with many other Members of this House, including, I think, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich, and the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), I have been trying by means of question and answer in the House for the last nine months, to call the attention of the Minister of Health to this matter and to bring about a more satisfactory condition of affairs in reference to this test work. I have been met, however, with evasive answers. In fact, the
answers of the Minister have shown a complete ignorance on the subject until our persistency led him to investigate the matter further and last December he promised an inquiry. That inquiry has now been going on since the middle of December, and reports must have come in, but nothing more has been heard of it. We are now almost in April, and surely the Minister of Health could have spent some time in studying those reports. If he had, I am sure he would take action. May we know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government to publish those reports? If it is not, the only conclusion that one can draw is that the Government do not intend to take any action in the matter, because if the reports are published, public opinion will insist on action being taken. I must apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary for not having given longer notice of this question. I gave what notice I could, as soon as I knew that this opportunity would arise, and I do not want detailed replies to all my questions, but I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Department to publish the reports of their own commissioners on the position of test work.
May I describe what happens in my own constituency? If I exaggerate in any particular, I am sure my colleague the hon. Member for the City of Norwich (Mr. W. R. Smith) will contradict me, because he feels as strongly about it as I do. Until the passage of the recent Unemployment Insurance Act, which reduced the number of test workers, there have been roughly between 600 and 1,000 test workers in Norwich, according to the season of the year. The bulk of them are men under 45, but there is a large number of men over 45, who, through no fault of their own, but owing to the change of fashion, were thrown on the Employment Exchange, and when their benefit was exhausted these able-bodied men, destitute, unable to find a jab, drifted on to test work at Hellesdon, Earlham, and Mousehold. When I asked the Minister of Health about the Hellesdon test ground, and pointed out that a man had to tramp nine miles there and back altogether to undergo test work, I was put off with the official reply that Hellesdon test ground was one mile from the city boundary. Of course,
it may be that, though I think it is more, but I walked the distance myself, I cross-examined a large number of test workers, and I found that the average walked by those whom I examined was about seven miles. After all, in a big city, if a test ground is a mile or a mile and a half from the city boundary, it means that a man who walks there from the middle or from the far side of the city may have to walk 10 or even 12 miles a day.
These men march out in all weathers. If it is pouring with rain, they report to the headquarters, and the test work is excused for that day. If it is not wet when they start, they march out, and they may get sopping wet on the way and have to work in the wet all day. Then they have to walk some four or five miles home at night, and I have personally known men who were fit a year or two ago, who, through undergoing this form of semi-slavery, have deteriorated in health at the end of a year and have not even been fit to walk out the seven or eight miles. The Mousehold test ground is not so far, and the average walk is perhaps four or five miles. I have paid no attention to the Earlham test ground.
As regards the work done, it is absolutely farcical. Since 1921, at the Hellesdon test ground, an average of 200 or 300 men have been making what is called a road. I have made careful inquiries and examined this road myself. It could have been made by a gang of 200 men in one month, whereas it has taken nine years for these men to make it, which shows exactly the way they work and the uselessness of the work. For nine years you have been making these men, decent, old, trade union men, believe that they are doing work of national importance on a futile task. You cannot treat grown citizens like that. You could take a child of two from a nursery and give it a spade and let it dig sand, and the child would enjoy it, but you cannot treat men of 30, 40, 50 or 60 in that way, put them on work that everybody knows is farcical and useless, and pretend that there is any use in it. The work at the Mousehold test ground is equally farcical. The men dig a hole, fill a barrow with sand, wheel the barrow
30 yards, and upset it, and then someone takes the sand back, and so they go on.
9.0 P.M.
When one reaches a certain time of life, one gets case-hardened. I think our generation, that went through the War, ought to be, if they are not, and one is not easily moved, but I confess that I have never visited a test ground without feeling physically sick. This test work is condemned by men of every party, by Conservatives, by Socialists, and by Liberals, but nothing is done to stop it. When I put questions to the Minister of Health, I get the reply that useful work is being performed. As a result of the questions from these benches, an inspection was made. It was a very official inquiry, and it was not done as the Minister of Health promised. Very little opportunity was taken to talk to the men and to find out their views. I do not know what happened in the rest of the country, but it was a most disappointing affair, and instead of an impartial and unofficial inquiry being made, I am afraid it was extremely official, and I very much doubt if any good will come of it.
I have here the Draft Rules and Orders in regard to the Poor Law issued on 11th February, 1930. These are the new Regulations to govern the public assistance committees, which are the successors of the present boards of guardians and which will begin functioning to-morrow. I sincerely hope that these Regulations will not govern the administration of Poor Law relief as regards test work, because although in some respects they are an improvement, in many respects they worsen the position. I believe it has been the practice of the old boards of guardians to make a certain allowance in respect of rent, but I notice that under paragraph 13 of these Regulations:
The council shall not pay the rent or any part of the rent of the house or lodging of any poor person, or apply any portion of any relief granted in payment of any such rent, or retain any portion of that relief for the purpose directly or indirectly of discharging any such rent.
Perhaps I have misread that, but I should like to be satisfied that the present practice is unchanged. In my own constituency the maximum relief granted is 40s., and it is not granted to any destitute, able-bodied man into whose house an income of 45s. is coming. I
believe a similar rule obtains in most other Poor Law areas and that a maximum income coming into a house is fixed, but up to the present the income of children living with a destitute father has been counted as the income of the father, or at least a very large part of it has. That has been relaxed in my own constituency, and I believe the first £1 is now excused, but I imagine that in many parts of the country the income of children is counted as the income of a destitute, able-bodied test worker. That seems to me fundamentally unjust. A man is destitute and thrown out of his job; he has a boy and a girl living with him getting slender wages, perhaps of 25s. or 30s. a week, who are trying to save anything they can out of that for a nest egg—because, after all, they want to start a family some day—and their income is counted as the income of the poor father. It often happens that the father has to go to the expense of hiring two sets of rooms in order that he may qualify for Poor Law relief.
On the question of discipline and fines, I thank the Minister for the action she has taken. Fines were very common, and in my constituency a fine was imposed for some mild form of indiscipline. I took up a case with the Minister of Health, and he issued an Order, with the result that it has now been prohibited. For all gifts received, we are duly grateful. I hope that once the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary have got their minds off widows and housing, they will get down to this question, because it is a very serious question. I do not know how many men are on test work in the country, but my own constituency has suffered from it considerably. You cannot treat these men as criminals. They are a very decent lot of men. There may be a few, a very small percentage, who are taking advantage of the Poor Law relief, but the great bulk are decent trade unionists who will never get a job again. You cannot really treat them as children, and put them on useless and nonsensical work, which everyone knows has the effect of degrading and demoralising them. I hope that when the Minister of Health gets down to it, he will revise the whole system. I have not the slightest objection to work being imposed on the men, provided it is useful work, nor have the men any objection. I have never met
a man on test work who objected to the work, provided it was useful work. In cases where no useful work can be found, discretion should be allowed to the new public assistance committees, and their powers in this respect should be enlarged. I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary when we may expect the Report from the Ministry's inspectors, and know what action the Department take on it.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: We are indebted to the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Shakespeare) for introducing this subject. I am particularly grateful to him, because his speech explains something that happened to me just before the election, when I visited Norwich to address several public meetings. I found that at one of these meetings I had a very hostile audience, and with all the eloquence that I tried to command I could not get a cheer until I announced that the Conservative Government were going to abolish boards of guardians; then the roof came off. It is evident that there is a reason for that if the test work in Norwich is of the description that the hon. Member for Norwich gave. I do not wonder at it, and I should be interested to hear the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter. I agree that if there is one thing to which a decent workman objects, it is doing the job of digging a hole and filling it up again, and doing something that is not of real value to the community. There are people who argue that if you set these men to work on a job which is useful, it will do somebody else out of a job; they therefore try to justify their action by setting men on to useless tasks that will not compete with somebody else. That is a pack of nonsense.
In my own district, which is a very enlightened part of England, evidently more enlightened than the city of Norwich, there has been carried on for a considerable time a system whereby these men can be employed on really useful work. By arrangement between the board of guardians and the corporation, a slab mill, to make slabs for paving the streets, was started. The corporation used these slabs for paving the streets, and the men realised that they were doing something of a really useful character. Afterwards they could see these slabs and walk on them, and they felt that they were doing something to make the town a better
place. I believe that there was no feeling of resentment on the part of the men, because they realised that they were doing something of a useful character. We are grateful to the hon. Member far Norwich for having raised this question, because Norwich may not be the only place in England where they are doing this useless work, and there is not a Member who will not agree with him when he stated that this work should be abolished and useful work substituted.
I want to say a few words on a subject which was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. Taylor) was not in his place to move his Motion on maternity and child welfare because I desired to accord him my support. The hon. Member and I have a good deal in common, and we both represent a constituency in the county of Lincoln. I have been in conflict with him on several occasions. I remember once captaining a cricket team that played a team which he captained, and I believe that my side won, and I have on some occasions had to oppose him in debate in this House. I have had to object to certain Bills which he has introduced, but here we have got to a point where we can be in complete accord, and I am disappointed that he is not in his place to move his Motion. I am indebted to my right hon. Friend for raising this important question, and I am sorry that we have not a greater attendance of Members to take part in the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman divided the service into three groups. He spoke of the work of the Ministry of Health, a very important part of this work, and he spoke of the work of the local authorities—and here I am on very familiar ground. The right hon. Gentleman can speak very well of the work of the Ministry, because he had such a long and distinguished experience in that office. Then he spoke of the voluntary agencies.
I was interested in a remark of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Long-bottom), when he referred to the work of the previous Government in connection with maternity and child welfare. He recalled the Debates which we had in this House during the pasage of the Local
Government Bill about the question of removing these services from the block grant system, and continuing them on the percentage grant system. By not removing the services from the block grant, the late Government did a real service to those who are keenly interested in this question, because under the formula that is contained in the Act, funds were provided for the districts that were heretofore backward districts in order to enable them to put into operation a complete service of maternity and child welfare. In those Debates instance after instance was cited of poor districts which could not find the percentage necessary for this service, and which were put at a great disadvantage compared with some of the wealthier districts. We argued then, and I am prepared to argue now—and experience will prove that we were right—that putting these services on to the block grant system, and giving the local authorities the wherewithal to carry on the work, is far better than continuing on the percentage grant system, for it was well known that some of the districts could not raise the percentage which they would have to contribute towards carrying on these services. I would remind the hon. Member for Halifax that if there has been neglect on the part of the local authorities it is the fault of the local authorities and those who elect them, and not the fault of the late Government, which did provide for sufficient funds to be available to carry on this splendid work.
My right hon. Friend made a passing reference to voluntary agencies and to the volunteer workers who assist the local authorities in conection with maternity and child welfare work. I would like to pay a tribute to the many ladies who assist these local authorities without any thought of anything in the way of remuneration. If it were not for these ladies, who serve in the centres in our great towns and cities, this service would be far more expensive to the local authorities. Some of the best work is done voluntarily, and we ought to pay our tribute to these women, some of whom sacrifice to this work the time they could spend in the sporting field or in playing bridge or in other diversions of ladies who have a little leisure. They realise that this is a work of humanity, and that it ought to receive the widest possible support.
I am sorry, again, that the hon. Member for Halifax is not in his place because of the references he made to the late Government. I will quote a figure or two which may be helpful to the Parliamentary Secretary when she replies, because I suggest that if she follows the example set by my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) in their administration at the Ministry of Health, the House will not have much to complain abóut when we study the figures of this service 12 months hence. Let us go back to the year 1924–25, when we had a Socialist Government in office. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) knows quite well what I mean. The figures I am going to quote were figures budgeted for by the Socialist Government, of which I believe he was not a Member although a supporter—it may be an outside supporter.

Mr. KELLY: Outside the House.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Since then the hon. Member has managed to get in and I am glad of that, because he has provided us with many happy diversions. According to the annual report of the Ministry of Health, the amount spent on maternity and child welfare services in that year was £814,519. Then my right hon. Friend and his colleague came into office, and in 1925–26 the amount went up to £897,100, in 1926–27 it mounted to £962,476, and in 1927–28 we got the figure of £1,040,786; yet during the General Election we were told that the late Government had neglected this service. These figures refute that statement. In 1928–29 the amount budgeted for was £1,061,500. For last year the amount was 30 per cent. more than for 1924, when the Socialist Government was last in office. Let us consider of what this work consists. There are four main divisions. First, there are the ante-natal and infant welfare centres.

Mr. C. DUNCAN: Hear, hear!

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. C. Duncan) agrees with me. I hope that he has had as much experience of these matter as I have, and that he means what he says when he cries "Hear, hear." The second division is that of the health visitors, the third
concerns midwives, and the fourth maternity homes and hospitals. Here I wish to quote a figure or two to show the development which has taken place under the administration of my right hon. Friend and his colleague the right hon. Member for Edgbaston. I will take the years 1924 and 1928, because that will show what was done under the two administrations and provide a contrast. The number of infant welfare centres increased in those four years from 2,245 to 2,684, showing steady work and steady endeavour on the part of my right hon. colleagues. The ante-natal centres increased from 571 to 871. It must be borne in mind that we were then working under the old percentage grant system, and many local authorities were in the position that they could not raise the money which had to be put down in order to secure the grants.
Next we come to the health visitors, and here I would like to say that I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend said about their usefulness. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Clay Cross disagrees. I am sure he cannot have heard the speech, or he would not say that; because if I went into his constituency and said that he did not believe in health visitors I am afraid even his big majority would go down considerably. The number of health visitors increased from 1,848 to 2,020. That is not a big increase, and my right hon. Friend gave the reasons why it was not bigger, but if the suggestions he has thrown out are carried into effect by the Parliamentary Secretary and her colleague it will be found that the numbers will soon increase. In 1924 there were 13,620 practising midwives, and by 1928 the number had increased to 14,480, and the number of beds in maternity homes increased from 1,958 to 2,515. Taking into account the fact that the infant mortality rate has been steadily going down during this period, I say that there is some credit due to my right hon. Friend and his colleague for their administration of these services.
In 1906 the infant mortality rate stood at 132 per 1,000. In 1924 it had dropped to 75. [Interruption.] Yes, that was the year when the Socialist Government were last in office. It was a big drop as compared with 1906, but they had not been in office all that time. By 1928, under the administration of my right hon. Friend,
the figure had dropped to 65, which was a record. I want to see it drop further still. I think that under the present administration we shall have a continuance of the splendid service rendered during the late administration, and if we do that administration will have the full approval of hon. Members on this side, and we shall probably see a further diminution of the figure.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that the maternity mortality rate was pracically stationary. Although we have made a great advance in reducing the infantile mortality rate, we have not been able to make any advance in this serious matter. Is there any report which the Minister can present to the House from the Committee set up to investigate the matter? In May, 1928, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) announced his intention to appoint a representative Committee to inquire into the causes of maternal mortality and suggest remedies for its prevention. It was appointed in June, 1928. I do not know whether it has been able to present its report, but possibly the hon. Lady can tell us when she expects the report? Another Departmental Committee was appointed to inquire into the training of midwives and their conditions of employment. Has that Committee reported, and, if not, when can we reasonably expect the report?
In conclusion, let me say that I hope no effort will be spared by the Government to give generous assistance to the maternity and child welfare centres. During the Debates in the last Parliament, on the Local Government Act, we heard a good deal from hon. Members opposite when they were speaking from these benches about their great interest in this work. I have tried to show that we on this side have shown in a practical way in the past that we do take a deep interest in it. I trust that hon. Members opposite, now that they have the opportunity, will show by their actions while in office that their thoughts on behalf of these two services were not thoughts only when they were in opposition, but thoughts when they are in office and which they will carry out. I hope we shall hear from the hon. Lady some pronouncement of policy as to the course
which the Minister intends to pursue. I hope it will be a progressive policy and, if it is, I can assure her that she can count upon the support of the majority of the Members on all sides of the House.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): The Debate has ranged over a large number of subjects with regard to the whole administration of the Ministry of Health. It is somewhat unusual and not customary when a Vote like this is under discussion that there should be a Debate ranging over the whole field. I do not want to complain, but the House will understand it is almost impossible for me to answer individual cases without some previous notice being given. However, I will do my best with the aid of memory and such material as I have. I will begin with the subjects of which no notice was given, and there were a large number of these. There was the question of health visitors. The right hon. Gentleman who raised that matter knows perfectly well that the Ministry has never fixed salaries, and that the abolition of the percentage grant deprives the Ministry of Health of any control. We have just completed a survey with regard to salaries, and this will be forwarded to the local authorities and it will, I trust, have a levelling-up effect. We have agreed upon, and will shortly send out, a circular dealing with the question of training. As regards the number of health visitors, I have not the figures for a complete year and the numbers are for last year. The numbers quoted by the late Parliamentary Secretary are perfectly accurate.
As regards the question of test work, I cannot discuss individual cases without notice, but will answer to the best of my knowledge as to the law and the circumstances. As a matter of fact, a very considerable number of guardians give relief without any test work at all. We have issued a circular on the matter which states that it is desirable that some form of occupation should be given to able-bodied men. We stated that we considered every local authority ought in the first place to make arrangements for test work, and that the arrangements should include due provisions for securing that work, training or instruction should be suitable to the physical capacity and in-
telligence of the individuals. Where suitable arrangements can be made, the applicants should be put to the sort of work, training or instruction which may be appropriate to their case, but if the arrangements do not cover the ground or are unsuitable in any particular locality, there is nothing whatever to prevent the authorities from granting relief according to the circumstances. One hon. Member said that a particular board of guardians had had a very bad form of test work, and its action had been disapproved of by all parties on that board. Why do they not alter it?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: They have never had a chance until the public administration was taken over. The Ministry of Health has prevented them.

Miss LAWRENCE: The Ministry of Health has not prevented them. There is nothing whatever in the circular which prevents them from giving exactly the sort of instruction, work or training which they may consider adequate. If the work that is given is disapproved of by every member of the board, there is nothing to prevent them altering it tomorrow, and there was nothing to prevent them altering it at any moment in the past.
I turn next to the question of allowance for rent. Article 12 says the authority must not pay the rent; but the proviso goes on to say that they may take the rent into account in fixing the relief. Many local authorities do in fact take the rent into consideration and make a rent allowance, and have done so for 10 years and more. There has been a special inquiry into this matter. The reports are now completed, and my right hon. Friend will consider publication.
I think I have dealt with the chief points which have been raised this afternoon. Now I come to the question of maternal mortality and infant mortality. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) said that arrangements for children under school age might be made with the local education authority, but I would point out that under the Local Government Act this is only a permissive matter. The local education authority may apply to the Minister of Health, who has power to make an order on the subject. The
local authorities at the present time are taking over new responsibilities, and they are making new arrangements under the Act. I was interested in the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich that additional money was required for the care of infants. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, where is the opportunity offered for doing what he suggests under the Act of 1929? As a matter of fact, we should have to alter very much the whole structure of that Act. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion means that there should be a proportional grant paid for direct services, but that would be quite unsound, and contrary to the Act of 1929. We have been told that special money is required for infant welfare. That is one of the services which have been taken away from proportional expenditure and placed under the block grant which is stereotyped for a term of years. Of course, we cannot give any more money for that purpose, unless we tear up the Act of 1929, and if we decide to do that with regard to this one service of infant life protection, I hope we shall have the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich as a supporter.
I now come to the question of maternal mortality, which, in my opinion, is one of the most important questions to which the House can address itself. The average figure of maternal mortality has remained steady over a period of years over the whole country. Some years it fluctuates up and sometimes down. Some people might think that this was a rather mysterious thing, but if you take the figures for the whole country and compare them with some special district, you find a very striking variation, and they fluctuate over an extraordinary range. I do not want to stress the figures too much, but when you see certain counties and districts year after year heading the list, some of the figures being three or four times as large as the others, you begin to look for some special local cause, and I believe that you can account for this to a certain extent by the amount of attention that is given to the subject. There are two committees dealing with this question. One is the departmental committee on medical research, which has already received confidential reports on individual cases, and that committee is
on the point of making a report. The second committee is dealing with the training and assistance of midwives, and it has already reported. That subject raises a very large number of questions of great difficulty which would involve further legislation. Our great difficulty is to obtain proper maternity services for ante-natal clinics and advisory clinics, and we want more co-operation on this subject between national health insurance work and the work of the local authorities. The matter is receiving our consideration, but I do not think the question of legislation has been fully explored up to the present by the Department of the Ministry of Health. All I can do at the present moment is simply to allude to the subject, and say that it is receiving consideration.
There is one other point I always desire to make when I have a chance of approaching the question, and that is the great importance of advice to expectant mothers. I do not think there is any form of health work where the results in proportion to the expenditure are more gratifying. In addition to that, there is the work of public education in this matter. I have here two or three figures in regard to expectant mothers. The percentage of expectant mothers who attended ante-natal clinics in Woolwich, where they have a really thorough good, healthy propaganda, is 40 per cent. The percentage is 35 in Bermondsey, 27 per cent. in Bristol, 13 per cent. in Manchester, and 15 per cent. in Gates-head. Those are very extraordinary figures, which show that not only local effort is necessary, but also that a persistent campaign of public education is necessary as well.
I do not believe that the problem is insoluble. I know that it raises very intricate questions which Parliament would do well to consider. I believe that if our local authorities would use their powers to the full and conduct a great campaign of public education in order to bring up the level of the backward authorities to that of the best, we should see, not a complete solution but a very gratifying improvement in this service. I think I have now answered all the questions which have been put to me as far as I am able. I should have given the House a fuller explanation on these
points, but for the fact that the Amendment deals only with maternal mortality, and there is no Amendment on the Paper dealing with other matters. I have had no warning of any kind that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich was going to range over the whole administration of the Poor Law, and I think that if I had had notice of that—I am not complaining—I should have been able to give the House a very much fuller account of the situation.

Mr. MELLER: The hon. Lady has dealt with some aspects of this question which certainly interest me, and, I believe, interest representatives of local authorities throughout the country. The hon. Lady can congratulate herself that, although some parts of the subject have been sprung upon her, nevertheless that part in which, I think, all Members of the House and a large proportion of the population outside are very much interested, namely, the question of maternal mortality, has been dealt with very adequately by her, and, if I may say so, very kindly. I am sure that she appreciates what this problem means to the country. It is not a case of just summing up the number of deaths that occur to mothers in the act of child-bearing, but there is also the enormous amount of suffering and distress which follows. It is the morbidity of the child-bearing that is the serious matter, and, so far, the scientists do not seem very much to have touched this aspect of the question, in spite of all the work that has been done on this subject by the medical profession throughout the country.
I have had an opportunity of discussing this matter, not only here, but in Germany, and I have gathered from Germany some very remarkable statistics and experiences obtained in the maternal clinics there, which have been carried on on a much larger and more elaborate scale than in this country. The hon. Lady has referred to the great disparity in the maternal mortality figures in various parts of the country, but I think that the most remarkable feature which so far has been disclosed is that the maternal mortality, so far as London is concerned, is lower in the East End, taking Bethnal Green as an example, than in the West End. It cannot be said that that is due to lack of care or service; there must be something more than that. The view has
been expressed from time to time that perhaps in the West End of London the bearing of children is postponed to a very much later date than in the East End; or it may be that the development of health and child welfare clinics has been taken on at a very much greater pace in the East End and in the poorer districts than in the West End.
I welcome very heartily the suggestion and I hope it is going to be taken up by local authorities throughout the country, that there should be more propaganda, more spreading of knowledge, on this subject. I am sure that the hon. Lady does not desire that this shall be confined to the poorer districts, but that we should have this knowledge spread in those places in which women find themselves in happier circumstances than in the poorer districts; and, therefore, if the hon. Lady can do nothing by way of the development of propaganda, I think she will have the very hearty support of Members on this side of the House. She said that she rather hoped that there would be a development of the consideration of this question and of co-operation between National Health Insurance and local authorities. May I point out what has been happening, though the hon. Lady probably knows it as well as I do? Some suggestion was made by the Ministry of Health to National Health Insurance societies that they might consider devoting a portion of the amount which is now known as maternity benefit to a payment to the doctors for services rendered—that the maternity benefit would be reduced from £2 to £1, and that £1 should be spent on providing pre-natal and post-natal services; and a large proportion of that £1 was to go into the pockets of the doctors.
For myself, I am not disposed to accept the view that a larger sum should be paid to the doctors for National Health services than is being paid at present. I should suggest, rather, that, if any amount is to be paid at all, more might be paid for the greater development of maternity and child welfare services than is the case under the local authorities at the present moment. That work has in many districts, the hearty co-operation of women who are anxious to do the greatest service to their fellow-women,
and those who have had the opportunity of visiting any of these clinics will know how heartily such assistance is welcomed by women in the peculiar condition in which they find themselves, not only at the time prior to child-bearing, but afterwards, when they go and gather all the information that they can for the better upbringing and health and care of their children. Therefore, I think that the hon. Lady would do well to consider the development of the maternity and child welfare clinics, and not to ask for too much support and co-operation under the National Insurance scheme. I am sure that too much stress is laid on this point, and that there is a greater desire to get hold of some of this money for the pockets of the doctors than there is to provide those health-giving services which should be the main object.
On the question of how far the hon. Lady can go in helping the local authorities, she has said that we should probably ask for more money. I do not know that the local authorities are asking for more money at the present moment. What they are asking is that the central authority shall encourage them by looking kindly upon any applications which are made for development in their areas. I am sure that the county councils are very anxious to help as far as they can, but at the moment the county councils and local authorities art finding themselves in a little difficulty. The county councils are, or will be after to-morrow, endeavouring to carry out faithfully the powers that have been conferred upon them by the Act of 1929, but, on the other hand, you have the local authorities, who in the past have been the maternity and child welfare authorities, finding a sort of competition between the two bodies. I hope that the hon. Lady will endeavour to smooth out the difficulties which may arise from the competition of the central authority and the local authority, and that, if these difficulties come up for settlement by the Ministry of Health, she will at all events impress upon them the desirability, not of fighting among themselves as to whether they lose or gain some power, but of going forward and helping this splendid work of maternity and child welfare, which will not only benefit the district, but the country as a whole and the future population of this country. Although this discussion has ranged over
a very wide field, I am sure that it has at least brought forward some views and expressions which will hearten the hon. Lady in this work, and that, if she asks the House to endorse practically what we have said to-night with regard to the development of maternity and child welfare work, although it may cost something, she will find a very hearty and sympathetic response from Members on this side of the House.

Major GLYN: The House has listened with very great interest to the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Meller), who is so intimately associated with the work of the great friendly societies. I would like to put in a word for the friendly societies in the rural areas. There is a federation of rural approved societies, and for many years those societies have dispensed additional benefit for the assistance of women, in regard both to pre-natal information and to attendance during the time they are in confinement. I believe that this question is probably the most important and vital matter of the social health and social conditions that can be mentioned in this House, and, as we all know that prevention is better than cure, I most heartily agree with the hon. Lady that it is really a matter of educating public opinion. I am sure the House was interested in the figures the hon. Lady gave showing the extraordinary discrepancy in maternal mortality between different centres of large population. Perhaps the worst offender she mentioned was Middlesbrough, and other places were considerably better.
The most important matter is to try to see that women living in rather isolated conditions in rural areas are not forgotten under any scheme introduced by the Government. We always get statistics from great centres of population, and there are people who believe that slum conditions exist only in great cities. The fact is that there are far too many cottages in rural districts where people are asked to bring children into the world which are entirely unsuited for the purpose. I feel that we who sit for rural constituencies ought to spend the whole of our time in emphasizing to the Ministry the importance of bringing those facilities to rural areas which are, thank goodness, now available in our great cities.
I believe many county councils are only too anxious to assist in this work. It is the district nursing associations which really have to carry on the business. The voluntary work done by them and by nursing committees does not obtain that recognition that it ought to obtain, nor does the devoted service of the nurses, who have to go immense distances in all weathers, receiving the most inadequate salary, proceeding on bicycles in the dark, going mile after mile to look after some woman in an isolated cottage. With that work going on day by day and night by night throughout the land. I feel that we could not spend money in this House better than by encouraging the local authorities to give that assistance to the nursing associations which will enable them to give a better salary to their nurses, and will also enable the nurses to have refresher courses where they can learn the very latest methods which will give assistance to their patients.
I do not want to say anything against the medical profession. It is known to everyone what wonderful work is done by doctors, but I often feel that, since the panel system came into force, there has been an inclination on the part of some doctors rather to lie back and not keep to the front of their profession. There is the feeling, "I am a panel doctor, and these people have to come to me. Here am I. I am going to give them so much medicine and get so much for it." I have had something to do with these rural districts. There are about 250,000 members of the affiliated societies who come under this federation, and the local secretaries all have the same tale to tell. They are opposed to the very utmost to spending any more money on the doctors while there are other things on which they believe money could be better spent.
10.0 P.M.
One of the most important things in regard to educating the community is to give that public sense of the decencies of life which a man must contribute towards his wife. This is not an easy matter to talk about in the House, but there is no doubt that many cases of maternal mortality and infant death are due to the selfishness of the husband, and that is a matter which surely must be considered. It is not a matter for the
medical profession. It is a matter for public opinion, and I believe there should be clinics established, and perambulating clinics, if possible, in motor lorries, to go to isolated villages and be available to explain to all married women those main principles of the ordinary rules of life which people in cities can obtain by going to these clinics but which women in isolated country districts long to know but have no opportunity of knowing. What business have we to allow ignorance to exist? The medical profession and the nursing profession slave away and do an enormous amount of good work. There were about 607,000 births in England at the last period for which figures are available, and only 61 per cent. were attended by registered midwives.
I believe the Midwives Act did an enormous amount of good, and I believe we should do all we can to encourage people to join in this profession. At the same time I have known instances, and I daresay Members in all parts of the House will know of others, where a person called a midwife is old, because there is no one to take her place, is not versed in the most modern practice nor is she kept up-to-date by the old-fashioned country practitioner. Sometimes, when you hear about the methods adopted, you realise why we are the great race we are, because it is indeed the survival of the fittest, and it means that, if people can come into the world under the conditions that obtain, they certainly should not suffer death from any of the ordinary misadventures of life. I believe the women's institutions and the rural councils of these voluntary organisations can play a tremendous part in giving that information which is so necessary, and I think our late administration deserves great credit for having allowed, under the provisions of the Act, approved societies to disburse their disposable surpluses in the direction of these additional benefits and to make a direct payment which is recognised by the Ministry towards local nursing associations. I am certain if that method can be extended in some parts of the country great encouragement will be given to nursing associations, and funds will be available for those devoted women to have the opportunity of going to the Queen Charlotte or some other hospital and learning the latest practice.
There is another thing that I appeal to the hon. Lady to consider. I believe a great deal can be done, when a lorry or a van comes round to teach these ordinary practices, to have someone there who will be able to improvise those sanitary uses of modern medical skill which are available in the ordinary cottage. It is not the slightest use lecturing to these people in regard to procuring the conditions that obtain in the first-class up-to-date hospital. We have to deal with the mother who has perhaps a large family and is unable to leave them. She ought to get away to a proper maternity home or hospital, but she has to wait till the last moment. Very often the conditions under which she works do not make it easy for her to bear a child under proper conditions.
I am certain that in all parts of the House there will be assistance to any Administration that tackles this problem. I believe we lag sadly behind Germany and other Continental countries, because we have a sort of moral slide in our brains. We seem to have diffidence in talking about those facts which everyone knows and everyone should recognise, and, if we are courageous and look facts in the face, and tear away the sort of veil of false morality or false decency, whatever it may be called, none of us will remain longer in the House without doing far more than we have yet done to bring the benefits of modern medical skill to women who are about to bear children, be they those who inhabit the great cities or the most isolated rural districts.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: The Debate has covered fairly wide ground, although the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health seemed to complain that she had not been given notice about the question of maternity and child welfare.

Miss LAWRENCE: I complained that I had not received any notice with regard to test-work cases.

Dr. DAVIES: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon, because I was going to congratulate her on the very effective answer she made to the points which had been raised, and I thought that if that was what she had done without notice, what would she have done if notice had been given to deal with medical subjects? I regret that latterly the Debate seems to have de-
veloped into a more or less underhand attack upon the medical profession. I am the only medical man who has had the privilege of addressing the House on this occasion to-night, and I would, with all humility, submit that for an effective maternity and child welfare service, you must have doctors. You cannot do without them. You cannot do without the help of the medical profession in the child welfare service, and I was surprised at my hon. Friend on my left saying, "Whatever you do, do not give the doctors more money," and another hon. Member of my party, the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) saying, "Whatever you do, do not give doctors more money."
It has to be recognised that the maternity service of a medical man is an extremely onerous service. When a medical man who has been busy with a panel practice, working hard all day seeing his patients, and perhaps getting to bed at 12 o'clock at night, and in a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes afterwards being called out for a confinement and having to stay up all night, and then having to attend the case for 10 days afterwards, receives a guinea or 25s. for all that work, one can very easily understand why a very large number of medical men to-day are gradually going out of maternity work. They will not undertake the trouble. They say, "Why stay up all night and have to attend the case for 10 days for 25s.?" I have attended hundreds of confinements for 10 days and stayed up all night for a guinea. I would not like to start again. You will find that practitioners are not now inclined to give their time to this work—because it does require time and patience—and that there is a tendency for the maternity service to get into the hands of particular doctors. They are becoming more or less maternity specialists, while confinements are getting more and more into the hands of certified midwives. That is a move which has the hearty sympathy of all medical men, because there is no doctor who has anything like a practice who can afford to spend hours on end, perhaps, waiting for some poor woman to be delivered of child. It is better that certified midwives should attend to these cases where they have to wait so long and that they should
send for a medical man if necessity arises. Unless the medical man and the midwife are adequately remunerated you are not going to get an effective maternity service.
The question of maternal mortality has been raised by several speakers. There is no more tragic affair in human life than the woman who, in giving birth to a new life, loses her own life. It is one of the greatest tragedies that a doctor has to face and one of the greatest tragedies in the life of the nation to-day. Yet the peculiar thing is, as my hon. Friend has said, that it is not of necessity that you get these puerperal cases in the slums. You will find very often that in a very bad slum district you get confinement after confinement by the score without the slightest thing going wrong and yet you may have a confinement in a mansion and get a puerperal case. Puerperal fever does not depend on slums, although one naturally does not want people to give birth to children in slums.
That brings me to one point to which I want to call the attention of the hon. Lady, namely, the provision of beds for maternal cases. There is a tremendous shortage of these beds in the country. I find that during the last Report of the Ministry of Health in the whole country the number of hospital beds recognised for grant by the Ministry is 2,480. Two thousand four hundred and eighty beds for nearly 670,000 births! It seems appalling does it not? There is a definite need for the provision of such beds. You have so very often a case which is, apparently, normal but in regard to which during the confinement something goes wrong and you desire to get the patient away. You have difficulty in getting her into hospital on account of the shortage of beds and very often the case becomes too dangerous for the patient to be removed. A method which could be much extended by the Ministry of Health, if they gave it sympathetic consideration and also made a suggestion to local authorities, is that they should take over, not what I call municipal maternity homes, which I know are coming into existence, some of which are doing extraordinarily good work but large houses which have become more or less derelict. These houses should be taken over by the local authority and made into
maternity homes, simply to enable women to be taken out of slum areas or out of poor households away from their families where they can be attended by their own doctor and nurse. You would simply be providing them with fresh lodgings away from their children and away from their families. I am certain that a service like that could be established at very little cost and that it would prove a great boon to the mother and to the midwife and the doctor, and help things generally.
The need for ante-natal work has now become very well recognised, but again this is a case where the whole success depends first of all upon your doctor and secondly upon your nurse. I was the medical officer for an ante-natal welfare and child welfare centre and one great difficulty which I had with ante-natal work was to persuade the women to come. They would not come. A woman very often said, "I shall be all right. My mother tells me I am all right," or, "I have had one or two children and shall be all right." Very often they are all right, but the great difficulty is to get women who are going to have their first baby to come to the ante-natal centre to be examined to see if everything is in order. Often they do not come and when tragedy happens people turn round and say, "What an awful pity!"
What we want is education and propaganda, that the women of the country, especially the young married women, should be led to understand that it is to their advantage and to the advantage of their baby that they should be examined as early as possible in order to find if everything is perfectly in order. If things are not in order, precautions can be taken. If that happens we should not have a lot of the tragedies which we see to-day. One of the greatest nuisances and obstacles to the proper progress of maternal service is the old grandmother—the old grandmother who has had 15 or 16 children, and buried 12 or 13 of them. She never had this, that or the other; she never had any of these new fangled things when she was having her babies, and she does not see why her daughter or her granddaughter should have them. One of the greatest difficulties is to get rid of this old woman; to get her out of the way at the time of the confinement and prevent her from interfering. That is
one reason why we should remove as many of these women as possible from their homes to a new home, where they Gould have rest and quiet, not merely for the sake of the confinement, but during the day. What happens in so many cases? There is the mother with her new baby in a room downstairs, where there are, perhaps, three or four other children, and where the cooking has to be done and the meals eaten in the same room. What health, rest and benefit can there be for the mother under those conditions?
I should like to bring forward another point, and that is the question of the midwife. I know that there is a committee sitting to inquire into the training of midwives. I believe that the Ministry of Health have some idea of either doing away with or relaxing some of the regulations of the Central Midwives' Board. I suggest that that would be a retrograde step. The Central Midwives' Board have done extraordinarily good work and are doing good work to-day. It should be the duty of the Ministry, instead of handicapping that institution, or interfering with it, to do all they can to encourage the board in their very good work. It is also necessary to see that there is efficient after-care, and that there are health nurses competent to look after the mother and the baby.
I am glad that the Ministry of Health insist that health visitors should possess the health certificate, to show that they have been properly trained in regard to the work that they have to do, but there is one great danger which applies to health visitors as well as other nurses. It does not necessarily mean that a person with the best certificate or with the largest number of degrees is the best person for the work. There is such a thing as professional tact, common sense, and motherliness. I have seen health nurses, with long letters after their name, wonderful and excellent nurses in every respect from the professional or technical point of view, but as human beings and nurses absolutely hopeless for the mother and children—no kindness, no tact, no motherly feeling, yet the poor women have to be cared for by these nurses. On the other hand, I have come across ignorant, untrained women among the working-classes, born nurses. I have seen them take to the children straight away. They pick up knowledge very quickly. Often in my medical career I was much more
pleased when I had an untrained, motherly woman to act as nurse than a certificated nurse, very well qualified so far as degrees were concerned. Therefore, I would ask the Ministry not to pay too much attention to the certificate but to take into consideration to a certain extent the character of the women.
Another point on which the Ministry might exercise a certain amount of healthful control is in the feeding of the children. This country is perhaps not as far advanced as it should be in the question of pure milk. Every effort has been made to see that women suckle their own children, because mother's milk is best for the child. With patience and perseverance most mothers could feed their children, but very often when they do not do so it is because they do not want to do it. Their social engagements take too much out of them, and they cannot both fulfil their social engagements and feed their baby; therefore, the baby suffers, and very often it means that we have to fall back on artificial feeding. The Ministry might concentrate more than they do on the question of pure milk. They could pay more attention to the unsweetened condensed milk which is imported from the Continent in such huge quantities, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), Minister of Health in the last Government, said was not fit for babies. What happened? People buy it just the same because it is cheaper than ordinary milk, and we know that in many districts children are being fed on milk which is bound to do them harm. The suggestion I have to make, I have made it before, but it has never done any good, is that this condensed milk from abroad should not be allowed to be sold, retail, in less than 7-lb. tins. Very few people would walk about with a 7-lb. tin of condensed milk. By doing that you would immediately stop the sale of these 4-oz. tins and then they would be compelled to provide one of the dried milk foods or, better still, pure milk from the cow. Our milk supply requires looking into. The amount of adulteration which goes on is a disgrace to our civilisation. Very often you find in the more residential towns the worst milk supply. Two years ago I brought to the attention of the House the peculiar fact
that in some of the operative towns of Lancashire, where the climate is very good with plenty of rain and smoke, there was absolutely no signs of the sale of contaminated or adulterated milk. You come down to the towns on the South coast, the great watering places, and the adulteration is 20, 30 and 40 per cent. That is rather peculiar. In Lancashire they get pure milk; down in the south they cannot.
Then with regard to tuberculosis. The Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I do that surgical tuberculosis in children, one of the most dreadful of complaints, is undoubtedly due to tubercular cows milk, yet how often is the milk examined for tuberculin? We have our tuberculin tested milk it is true, but ordinary people cannot afford to pay it. We as a wealthy nation can afford to spend millions on pensions and out of work pay yet we cannot afford to provide our children with tuberculin tested milk. The babies of this country are the future men and women; and one would have thought that the first duty of the Ministry of Health was to see that they started well, that they were properly fed with tuberculin tested milk in order to give them a chance of a good start in life; and not do so much for them when they are grown up. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that they should take care of them from the day they are born until they are dead. I believe that a man when a man is fit to work he is fit to look after himself. The Ministry of Health should do more than they are doing for the infants of the country—

Mr. ALPASS: Is it not the fact that the circular sent out by the late Minister of Health cut down the standard of the milk supplied to infants.

Dr. DAVIES: The hon. Member is quite mistaken. I thought that canard had been destroyed. All the late Minister of Health did was to point out that certain economies were necessary—[Interruption.]—and that an economy could be made on the milk supply, because towns of strictly comparable character were spending different sums of money upon the milk supply. But it was left absolutely to the local authorities to decide whether they would reduce the milk supply. The Ministry in no single case told them to reduce it, and as a matter
of fact in very many towns the milk supply was increased. Those are the facts of the case, which may be verified quite easily. Of course they are common knowledge. The Conservative Government spent very much more on milk than any other Government. There is one other subject that I want to mention in connection with maternity and child welfare centres. That is the very vexed subject of birth control. I find that there is an agitation spreading to certain parts of the country, and I am very astonished to find that amongst members of the Socialist party it is becoming more and more a political question that the Government should give doctors at ante-natal centres power to inform inquiring mothers as to methods of birth control [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It is apparent from those cheers that there are some hon. Members opposite so misguided and so ignorant as to imagine that the Government should have power to ensure that their medical officers give advice on the subject. The competent medical opinion of the country is definitely opposed to birth control.

Mr. THURTLE: Rubbish!

Dr. DAVIES: I repeat my statement. Competent medical opinion in this country is overwhelmingly against birth control. It is only a few weeks ago that there was a meeting held of a medical society in London to discuss this very point, and the opinion was overwhelmingly against birth control. Therefore, when people say that they are in favour of birth control they are speaking from ignorance.

Mr. THURTLE: Does the hon. Member think that Lord Dawson of Penn is not a very good medical authority, and is he aware that Lord Dawson is strongly in favour of birth control?

Dr. DAVIES: In the first place, if I might mention the Noble Lord's name he is not an obstetrician. He is a physician generally, and I probably have attended very many more confinements even as a general practitioner than Lord Dawson ever did. Because he happens to be a swell physician it does not mean that he is really a competent authority in deciding this question. When I was speaking of competent medical opinion I was speaking only of the gynaecologists and obstetric
surgeons whose work is concerned with maternity and the diseases of women. They are competent to judge, because they see the ill effects of birth control. Lord Dawson of Penn would probably never see the ill effects of a case like that, which is outside his line of practice. Let hon. Members talk to any obstetric surgeon or a medical man or woman accustomed to a large gynaecological practice, and almost without exception these people will say that birth control is detrimental to the woman and detrimental to the child. I hope that the Government will persist in the attitude that they have adopted up to now. I hope that they will refuse to instruct any of their medical officers at these centres to give information on birth control.

Mr. DUNCAN: On a point of Order. Is the question of birth control before the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to me that the hon. Member is going rather far from the subject which is before the House. I understand the Ministry of Health, at the moment, has nothing to do with that matter.

Dr. DAVIES: Questions have been put to the Minister of Health by hon. Members asking him to give authority to medical officers in these centres to give information on birth control. These questions have asked the Minister to issue an order to that effect; and with due submission I say that that brings the matter very definitely within the scope of the Ministry of Health affairs which we are discussing.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand from the hon. Member that the answer of the Minister of Health was that he would not give such instructions.

Dr. DAVIES: That is my point—that the Ministry would not give that instruction or that power.

Mr. SPEAKER: Then I think the hon. Member had better leave it at that.

Dr. DAVIES: In that case I hope that hon. Members opposite will take note of your ruling, Sir. I am sure that Members of all parties are sincerely anxious that maternity and child welfare work should advance by leaps and bounds. When we think of the large number of deaths in
child-birth and the large infant mortality—43,000 babies in one year—and when we know that much of this loss is preventible by efficient ante-natal work and efficient maternity and child welfare work, I am sure we shall all wish to do everything we can to encourage the Ministry. Let us therefore, not blaming them for what they have done or omitted to do in the past, encourage them to do all in their power in the future to see that the mothers and children of this land have every benefit which a highly civilised State can offer.

Miss RATHBONE: It had not been my intention to intervene in this Debate, but I should like to say how warmly many of us welcome what has fallen from the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health with respect to her sympathy with the proposal that maternity and child welfare work should be subject to a special grant, rather than remain under the block grant system. I hope that that sympathy will be translated into action by the Ministry. I do not wish to transgress your Ruling, Sir, by enlarging on the subject dealt with by the last speaker, but this much I hope I am in order in saying. In one respect, the action of the Ministry in that matter is actually impeding the women of the country in getting the kind of information which they most desire, to enable them to control the conditions of their own maternity. It is not, as far as I know, asked by any responsible body of opinion in this country that any physician should be asked to give information to any woman of a kind which he himself thinks undesirable or wrong. Therefore, if the last speaker is right in thinking that medical opinion of this country is against a certain practice, no one would request that any doctor should be required to give information which he himself believed to be contrary to the interests of his patient. What many of the women of this country ask is that, when their physician distinctly tells them that in the interests of their own health they cannot safely have another child, the doctor should not be prevented by the embargo of the Ministry from giving the information to the woman which she desires to have, and which he desires in the interests of her health to give her, and that owing to that refusal she may not be compelled
to seek the information from the nearest quack round the corner. I shall be interested to hear how much of that unfavourable medical opinion to which the last speaker alluded refers not to practices which take place in accordance with advice given by responsible physicians, but to practices that take place when an unfortunate woman is driven to seek, from incompetent persons and from quacks, the kind of information which she believes necessary for her own health.
If we look at what is happening in the United States, where they have taken exactly the opposite course to that which is taken here, we find that they will allow nobody but the medical officer of health and those in charge of public health clinics to give a certain kind of information. I think that is a very much more logical and reasonable way of seeing that the right kind of information is given than that which we adopt in this country, where the Ministry of Health is really carrying out the policy of the ostrich with its head in the sand by refusing to take official cognisance of the subject but, instead, leaves it to be dealt with by every quack and ignorant old woman who thinks she can give information on the subject.
Lastly, the hon. Lady referred to the recent Report on the question of midwifery training. May we again hope that that will be more than a Report, and that the Ministry intend very quickly to put, at any rate, part of that Report into practice? Very much depends on the necessity for an adequate remuneration for either doctor or midwife to do their work properly. The midwifery service is an extremely ill-paid service. The midwives have much more reason than the medical practitioners to hold back from coming into a profession where, on the one hand, they are so ill remunerated and, on the other hand, they are ever increasingly more strictly watched and supervised; and when anything goes wrong it is usually the ill organised profession of midwifery, and not the strongly organised profession of medicine, that has to bear the blame. Many of us doubt the wisdom of some of the recommendations in that Report that would place the whole onus of training and of preparing the syllabus for the training of midwifery upon medical officers of health rather than upon the present General Midwives
Board, because there is always the fear that the medical officers of health have too little practical experience in this kind of work and are too much, to put it quite bluntly, under the thumb of local medical opinion. But there are portions of that Report that we should greatly like to see carried into effect, and we hope there will be as little delay as possible in doing so.
Above all, we want greater encouragement given to the local authorities all over the country to spend more freely on this service. It was denied, I think, by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench above the Gangway that the late Government had cut down the grants for the supply of milk. If the late Government did not actually cut down the grants compulsorily, at any rate they gave a very broad hint as to the direction in which the authorities probably might economise. That was a hint unfortunately which too many of the local authorities were very quick to take, and we hope that the hon. Lady intends to reverse that policy on the earliest possible occasion.
We have heard so much lately on the question of unemployment, that many of us have had our thoughts fixed upon those rural areas in the mining districts where there are bad conditions that lead to that excessive maternal mortality that has been the subject of such interest—bad housing conditions, very scattered cottages where there are very often no doctors or nurses within easy reach, and the highest birth-rate of any class whose birth-rate has been separately estimated. Many of these women have large families already, and are living in overcrowded cottages, with no medical help near them, and yet they are prevented from having the very knowledge which would alone enable them to prevent an increase of a family which is already pressing far too heavily on them. For all these purposes we desire a better paid midwifery service, and more action on the part of local authorities in giving that kind of information which is required for the women, and which through organised bodies, irrespective of party, they are insistently demanding the right to have when they wish it from the practitioners who are able to give it.

Duchess of ATHOLL: A good deal of ground has been covered on this extremely important subject of maternal health and infant welfare, but there are a few things which I should like to say. In regard to maternal mortality and morbidity, we were interested in what the Parliamentary Secretary said about ante-natal clinics and the great variation in taking advantage of them in different localities. She suggested the need for local authorities starting campaigns to make the advantages of these clinics better known. That is the sort of work in which valuable help can be given by voluntary effort, and for which we ought to be able to rely a great deal on assistance from voluntary societies and committees. I should like to suggest to the hon. Lady that, if she makes any recommendation to the local authorities, she should specifically invite them to enlist all the voluntary help possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I venture to say to hon. Gentlemen that a great deal more can be done for the development and improvement of the health services of this country, which mean such a lot to national health and well-being, by a happy co-operation between local authorities and voluntary agencies, than in any other way. A public body alone cannot do it, but a public body plus voluntary assistance can do it, and that is one of the distinctive features of the public health services of this country.
I was interested in some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) on the subject of maternity. He expressed his concern at the confinements that take place in slum dwellings, yet he wishes to ensure that such confinements should continue on canal boats. He went on to say what an advantage it would be for the mother to be able to get away after the confinement for a short while from her husband and her children—not an easy thing for a canal boat woman to do. In another interesting suggestion he spoke of the value of the mother, after her return home following her confinement, receiving the benefit of visits from some after-care association, but it would not be easy to ensure this for a canal boat woman. I hope he will ponder a little over this reflection, and as a result modify his attitude to the canal boat question. I would like to say a word about the subject which was brought
before the House in so sympathetic a manner by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn). It may have a bearing upon the problem of maternal mortality and morbidity, and I find it difficult to believe that the medical profession is so united in opposing consideration of this question as the hon. Member for Royton would lead us to believe. I should like to feel that the question was receiving very careful consideration in connection with this problem of maternal health. There is another factor which I cannot help feeling has a bearing on that question, and which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone). I believe that abortion is a very serious question in this country, and that it is becoming a problem of increasing dimensions. I would like to feel that the possible bearing of that question on maternal mortality and morbidity is being fully considered.
Quite obviously the health of children is of enormous importance in connection with the national health. I am sure no hon. Member needs to be reminded of what the chief medical officer of the Board of Education has said several times in regard to the health of children entering elementary schools. When that subject is brought up, some people are apt to speak as though the only way of dealing with the problem of the health of the pre-school child is by way of providing more nursery schools. I do not want to say one word against nursery schools, because I think they are doing perfectly splendid work. Another admirable method of dealing with the slum child or the child from the crowded areas is by nursery classes as they have been so well developed in Manchester. Day nurseries are yet another excellent method of dealing with children in these special areas. All these are forms of intensive effort on behalf of the young child, and one wants to see them developed in the areas where the health of these children specially calls for attention, but I want to stress to the House the point that this problem of the health of the pre-school child is an extensive as well as an intensive question; it is a question of doing something to help a large number of children as well as of doing a great deal to improve the health of a certain number. If that is admitted
it is quite clear that to deal with it we must have a more widespread organisation than anyone could reasonably expect nursery schools to become. The only organisation through which, it seems to me, you can really grapple on a large scale with this problem is through the child welfare service.
I was very glad to notice that in the Circular recently issued by the Minister of Health and the President of the Board of Education, among the various means of dealing with this problem, the child welfare service is not left out. The part which the development of the child welfare service must play in this problem is so important that I feel I must draw attention to it. When I last received official information on this subject, I was informed that, while in all areas in the country child welfare services were provided for children up to the age of one year, there was little service for children above that age. That obviously means that there is a very serious gap in this service between the ages of one and five years, when the child comes within the purview of the school medical service. It is of very great importance that the country should realise how important this question is, how big the gap is, and how essential it is that local authorities should make steady progress with filling that gap, and this is a moment at which this ought to be emphasised.
The hon. Lady spoke as if the only means of dealing with this question was by giving a grant outside the black grant under the Local Government Act, but of course she will not forget that under that Act the local authorities must bring forward schemes for the approval of the Ministry—schemes for the extension of child welfare services and for grants to voluntary bodies who are co-operating with them. I should like to ask the hon. Lady to give her most serious attention, in the schemes which will come before her, to see that everything possible is done to bring before the local authorities the importance of developing these services and of giving generous assistance to the voluntary bodies who can do so much to help. I submit that, while on this side of the House, we are not anxious to emulate hon. Members opposite in the rake's progress that they seem to follow in matters of public expenditure, we feel that this is one of the most important questions dealing with
the health of young children and that in the child welfare service money goes a very long way—further than in many others—and that you get the very best return for your money.
While in the towns you need the assistance of whole time health visitors in this service and you have your clinics, you must depend for this work in the rural areas largely on the help of the district nurses whose work has been so rightly praised by the Member for Abingdon. There is more than one reason for this. The first is that parents in the rural districts are often rather shy of strangers and the district nurse is not a stranger, whereas the health visitor who comes from a town some way off may not be welcome. Parents do not want several people coming into their houses, but they welcome the district nurse who they know as a friend and who with her training, is a person who can give the advice which is needed on various subjects. The local district association usually receives a grant from the local authority through a County Federation of District Nursing Associations. This has been done, I believe, in a good many English counties, but not to such a great extent in Scotland. In the county which I know best we formed a federation of our district nursing associations immediately the War came to an end, with the result that we have been able to have a regular visitation of all children from birth to five years of age, which is now showing its effect upon the health of children coming into the schools.
The position under the Local Government Act in Scotland should be better than in the past. Where there used to be many small authorities to deal with this subject, there is now only one authority with whom a Federation of District Nurses has to deal, and that gives a much better chance of carrying out schemes of this kind. This is all the more necessary in Scotland, because, unfortunately, our infant mortality, though lower than it was, is not as low as it is south of the Border. I do not press for an immediate reply to-night, but I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider whether he can do anything to bring before the local authority the importance of helping forward the formation of Federated District Nursing Asso-
ciations, and of inviting their co-operation in child welfare work.

Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1930.

CLASS VII.

ART AND SCIENCE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £220,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."—[NOTE. £110,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: There are one or two points to which I desire to draw attention. I want to know what is the reason why we have a re-Vote on page 5 of £3,500 for the British Museum. How does it conic about that that money was not spent. The sum of £4,000 was voted, and for one reason or another only £500 has been expended. I see that there has been added for this year the sum of £8,750, and on the next occasion perhaps we shall have some explanation in detail how this amount is made up.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Thursday.—[Mr. Shinwell.]

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 3) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to raise to fifty million pounds the limit on the amount of the advances to be made by the Treasury to the unemployment fund under Section five of the Unemployment Insurance Act,
1921, as amended by subsequent enactments, which may be outstanding during the deficiency period.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Miss Bondfield, Mr. Philip Snowden, and Mr. Lawson.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 3) BILL,

"to raise to fifty million pounds the limit on the amount of the advances by the Treasury to the Unemployment Fund which may be outstanding during the deficiency period," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 150.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

POOR LAW HOSPITALS (PHARMACISTS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Parkinson.]

Captain GUNSTON: I desire to raise the question of the position of pharmacists in Poor Law hospitals, as it is affected by the Draft Poor Law Order which has been published by the Ministry of Health, and which, I believe, is now called the Public Assistance Order, 1930. May I, in the first place, apologise to the House for having to raise this question on a night on which it is quite impossible for the Minister of Health to be in his place? He was good enough to tell me that he would very much have liked to be here; but we are sure that the hon. Lady, the Parliamentary Secretary, will be able to give us a lucid reply, which, we hope, will satisfy us all.
The pharmacists are very much concerned about this Order, because they naturally feel that the status of the members of their profession who are employed in Poor Law hospitals will be very seriously jeopardised. The members of this profession have to pass a difficult examination, and the public is under a great debt to them on account of their great skill and their devotion to public duty. May I say that we are not raising this question in any party spirit? It is a question which concerns all parties in this
Chamber and we do not want to embarrass the Government in general or the Minister of Health in particular. I will try to put my arguments as moderately as I can, because I think that we have an overwhelming case. The practice of appointment has varied. In some local authorities pharmacists are principal officers, and in many cases they are subordinate officers. The practice in the past has been that whether or not a pharmacist is a principal officer has depended on the local authority. We can claim that there are many local authoties who have made pharmacists principal officers. I have a few here as examples. In the Shoreditch Infirmary, the Saint Pancras Dispensary, and the Saint John's Road, Islington, Dispensary, pharmacists are principal officers. When we are talking about whether a pharmacist is sufficiently high up in the scale to be a principal officer, we may be quite convinced of the suitability of pharmacists being principal officers, when we know that the hon. Member for South Battersea (Mr. Bennett) is an ex-pharmacist. He raised the question on 5th December, and the Minister of Health replied that the tendency was for the central authority not to interfere with the local authorities in regard to their powers over their local officers.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Captain GUNSTON: I was saying that on 5th December the Minister of Health, replying to the hon. Member for South Battersea, said that in view of the growing tendency to leave the Poor Law and other local authorities the widest possible discretion in the control of their officers, he was not prepared to take action in the direction of imposing closer central control over those authorities, more especially in view of the changes which were bound to take place. I am satisfied that that reply was a reasonable one, and that the pharmacists were satisfied with the spirit of it. Unfortunately, this new Order has rather altered the aspect of the matter. We realise that the present officers of the board of guardians will keep their status, but we fear that under the new Order, as the terms of appointment will depend on the new Order, the status of the pharmacists will very
seriously be affected. Clause 144 shows who are to be the principal officers, and we are sorry to see that pharmacists have been omitted. Clause 145, which will be 144 under the final draft, says that only persons holding offices mentioned in Clause 144 can be principal officers, or, in other words, that pharmacists are now excluded. We see that the Minister is going contrary to the answer which he gave to the question of the hon. Member for South Battersea, because he is deliberately saying to the local authorities, "You shall not in future be allowed to make a pharmacist a principal officer."
The pharmacists are not raising this question on a matter of salary, but simply on a matter of status. The comparable service is that of the Navy. The Navy has pharmacists, and the superintendent pharmacist and the senior pharmacist are in the Navy List entitled to have the designation "esquire" after their names. The reason why that provision is made is that they are of equal rank with schoolmasters and the medical officers in the Navy. In the voluntary hospitals of this country the pharmacists are independent officers in charge of their own department. We say that if the Navy thinks that it is necessary to give this status, and the voluntary hospitals give the status, the status ought to be given by the local authorities. We do not ask that the Minister shall compel the local authorities to give the same status for pharmacists. We only ask that the local authorities shall themselves be allowed to decide whether they will do so or not.
I think that is a very modest request to make, and I do not think it will be much good for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that by granting this request they are increasing the control of the Ministry, because if they make the pharmacist a principal officer they cannot dismiss him without the consent of the Minister. If that excuse is to be made I do not think it is a valid one, because under this new Order they are making many people principal officers who have never been principal officers before. They are making the steward a principal officer, they are making a principal nurse in an institution where there are more than 100 beds a principal officer. Surely it is wrong to say they will let these be made principal officers and not allow a pharmacist in a Poor Law institution to
be made a principal officer. Many of these Poor Law hospitals which have been transferred are very important hospitals, which will compare in importance with other hospitals. For instance, the North Middlesex Hospital has 1,024 beds, the Hackney Hospital 798 beds, the Bermondsey Hospital 687 beds, and the Bethnal Green Hospital 650 beds. We do not say that in all these hospitals you must make the pharmacists principal officers. We only ask that the Ministry should allow the local authorities to make the pharmacist a principal officer if they want to do so. We are not demanding more control. We are simply demanding that these matters should be left in the hands of the local authorities, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will be able to meet us.

Miss LAWRENCE: If that is all, I can answer in one word—Yes. Prior to 1904, with a few exceptions, pharmacists employed by boards of guardians never had the status of principal officers. The exceptions were dispensers for the outdoor poor appointed under the Metropolitan Dispensaries Order of 22nd April, 1871, or under Special Orders, and, in one or two cases only, dispensers at workhouses appointed under Special Orders. In 1904, the then Local Government Board decided that pharmacists employed by boards of guardians were not to be reckoned as principal officers. When it came to the change which took place under the Local Government Act, so far as the Order was concerned, no change whatever was made in the Order relating to the institutions. That was done becase it was considered better that the local authorities should discuss what modifications might be needed in this old accumulation of Orders when the new authorities were in existence, and that the new authorities should decide the form of such modifications. This is not a new Order. It is an old Order reissued and reprinted, and nothing more. There is no modification of substance. The only modification is the change of the words "boards of guardians" to the words "county council" or "borough council." The Order which I hold in my hand has not been modified except the verbal modifications necessitated by the change in the names
of the new authorities. Article 143 is the old Article which has been issued a great number of times. The word "pharmacist" does not appear in any Order issued since the Local Government Board gave its decision in 1904. These are not new Orders. There is nothing fresh in them. They are old Orders re-issued, and pharmacists did not find a place in any Order, except a few old special Orders, prior to 1904. If local authorities desire that a pharmacist should be a chief officer they can recommend the matter to the Minister and discuss it with him, and can even appoint him as chief officer before the Minister examines the question. We do not interfere with a desire on the part of the local authority to have a pharmacist as chief officer. This assurance was given to the local authority by the previous Government that any amendment or modification with regard to superior officers should not be made until after consultation with the authorities. If any amendment is desired, it can be made subject to consultation with the local authorities. We have changed nothing. We have not made it impossible for them to be so appointed. In these matters, as in every other, we have left the position as it was, for consultation with the new authorities.

Sir K. WOOD: I should like to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on having raised this matter. Every Member of the House will agree that when a large body of men like this desire to bring their case before the House of Commons they should have the right to do so, and I much resent the action which was taken by hon. Members opposite in trying to prevent the case of the pharmacists being put before the House of Commons. I was all the more surprised when the Parliamentary Secretary departed from the Chamber in order to prevent a quorum being formed, and I hope the pharmacists of the country will notice her action in the matter. She had a perfectly proper case to put from the Ministry of Health, and I do not know why she took that course. It is a great pity that a body of men like the pharmacists, when they come to the House of Commons in order to put their case, should not have a reasonable reply given to them. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on having raised this
matter and I am glad that the reply has been given. Speaking for myself, I resent very much the action taken by the Parliamentary Secretary in endeavouring to prevent the subject being raised to-night.

Mr. W. BENNETT: Anyone who has been, as I have been, a pharmacist and dispenser under the Poor Law in a large infirmary knows the responsibilities which these men have, and when it is a question of their professional status they fee] very much indeed the position of being subordinate officers of these hospitals. The Parliamentary Secretary is mistaken in saying that no change has been introduced by these draft Orders. Some stewards were principal officers and some pharmacists were principal officers. Another Order has been brought in making all stewards principal officers, and that is a considerable difference. Our people are of opinion that unless this is put into the draft Order there is little chance at all that it will come from the local authorities. We think we shall have the sympathy of all hon. Members in asking that justice should be done to these men and that this opportunity should be taken for promising that an amendment will be made in the draft Orders giving these men this status. It will cost nothing and everyone knows what a difference it makes to a man's self-esteem when he is in a position of subordinate or principal officer of an infirmary. I have had this experience myself. The tightening up of the Poison Acts and the Dangerous Drugs Act has made the position of the pharmacist and dispenser in a hospital one of considerable responsibility, and I think that the least we can do is to give this recognition.

Mr. BROCKWAY: I imagine that most of us have welcomed the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that local authorities are able to appoint pharmacists as principal officers. In view of the uncertainty which exists about the position, both among pharmacists and local authorities, is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to issue a Circular to local authorities making it perfectly clear that pharmacists can be appointed as principal officers?

Miss LAWRENCE: I think there is some misunderstanding about this matter. I have said that there is nothing to prevent local authorities appointing phar-
macists, within certain limits. I think the local authorities are perfectly well aware of the position. These Orders are not new Orders. They are not re-issued Orders in the real sense of the term. They are old Orders with a change in name, which is necessary according to changed conditions. They have been
changed in that way, after a specific assurance to the local authorities that no great change would take place without consultation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.